MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964023423

COMPRESSIVE SAMPLING FOR ENERGY SPECTRUM ESTIMATION OF TURBULENT FLOWS

2015· article· en· W2964023423 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Kevlahan, Gudmundur F. Adalsteinsson

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremCompressed sensingMathematicsWaveletSampling (signal processing)Energy (signal processing)Signal reconstructionMatching pursuitAlgorithmBandlimitingSpectral densityFourier transformMathematical analysisSignal processingStatisticsComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent results from compressive sampling (CS) have demonstrated that accurate reconstruction of sparse signals often requires far fewer samples than suggested by the classical Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Typically, signal reconstruction errors are measured in the 2 norm and the signal is assumed to be sparse or compressible. Our spectrum estimation by sparse optimization (SpESO) method uses a priori information about isotropic homogeneous turbulent flows with power law energy spectra and applies the methods of CS to one- and two-dimensional turbulence signals to estimate their energy spectra with small logarithmic errors. SpESO is distinct from existing energy spectrum estimation methods which are based on sparse support of the signal in Fourier space. SpESO approximates energy spectra with an order of magnitude fewer samples than needed with Shannon sampling. Our results demonstrate that SpESO performs much better than lumped orthogonal matching pursuit, and as well as or better than wavelet-based best M-term or M/2-term methods, even though these methods require complete sampling of the signal before compression.

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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207