MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963465316 · doi:10.1109/isit.2011.6034172

Density evolution analysis of node-based verification-based algorithms in compressed sensing

2011· article· en· W2963465316 on OpenAlexaff
Yaser Eftekhari, Anoosheh Heidarzadeh, Amir H. Banihashemi, Ioannis Lambadaris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceCompressed sensingNode (physics)Context (archaeology)Message passingDecoding methodsAsymptotic analysisDimension (graph theory)Iterative methodSignal processingMathematicsDigital signal processingParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new approach for the analysis of iterative node-based verification-based (NB-VB) recovery algorithms in the context of compressive sensing. These algorithms are particularly interesting due to their low complexity (linear in the signal dimension n). The asymptotic analysis predicts the fraction of unverified signal elements at each iteration ℓ in the asymptotic regime where n → ∞. The analysis is similar in nature to the well-known density evolution technique commonly used to analyze iterative decoding algorithms. To perform the analysis, a message-passing interpretation of NB-VB algorithms is provided. This interpretation lacks the extrinsic nature of standard message-passing algorithms to which density evolution is usually applied. This requires a number of non-trivial modifications in the analysis. The analysis tracks the average performance of the recovery algorithms over the ensembles of input signals and sensing matrices as a function of ℓ. Concentration results are devised to demonstrate that the performance of the recovery algorithms applied to any choice of the input signal over any realization of the sensing matrix follows the deterministic results of the analysis closely. Simulation results are also provided which demonstrate that the proposed asymptotic analysis matches the performance of recovery algorithms for large but finite values of n. Compared to the existing technique for the analysis of NB-VB algorithms, which is based on numerically solving a large system of coupled differential equations, the proposed method is much simpler and more accurate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207