Quantization Bias for Digital Correlators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In radio interferometry, the quantization process introduces a bias in the magnitude and phase of the measured correlations which translates into errors in the measurement of source brightness and position in the sky, affecting both the system calibration and image reconstruction. In this paper, we investigate the biasing effect of quantization in the measured correlation between complex-valued inputs with a circularly symmetric Gaussian probability density function (PDF), which is the typical case for radio astronomy applications. We start by calculating the correlation between the input and quantization error and its effect on the quantized variance, first in the case of a real-valued quantizer with a zero mean Gaussian input and then in the case of a complex-valued quantizer with a circularly symmetric Gaussian input. We demonstrate that this input-error correlation is always negative for a quantizer with an odd number of levels, while for an even number of levels, this correlation is positive in the low signal level regime. In both cases, there is an optimal interval for the input signal level for which this input-error correlation is very weak and the model of additive uncorrelated quantization noise provides a very accurate approximation. We determine the conditions under which the magnitude and phase of the measured correlation have negligible bias with respect to the unquantized values: we demonstrate that the magnitude bias is negligible only if both unquantized inputs are optimally quantized (i.e. when the uncorrelated quantization error model is valid), while the phase bias is negligible when (1) at least one of the inputs is optimally quantized, or when (2) the correlation coefficient between the unquantized inputs is small. Finally, we determine the implications of these results for radio interferometry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".