MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970058164 · doi:10.1109/tcsii.2019.2937343

Sparse FIR Filter Design via Partial 1-Norm Optimization

2019· article· en· W2970058164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Circuits & Systems II Express Briefs · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite impulse responseNorm (philosophy)Filter designAlgorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)Linear phaseOptimization problemImpulse (physics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this brief, we consider a sparse linear-phase FIR filter design problem. Recent methods assume that all the coefficients can be nullified and, thus, various 0 or 1-norm-based optimization techniques are applied on each of them. In contrast, the proposed algorithm is based on two important observations: 1) Given design specifications, some coefficients cannot be nullified, otherwise the specifications cannot be satisfied. 2) Impulse responses on neighboring positions of an FIR filter cannot vary dramatically so as to guarantee the smoothness of the corresponding magnitude responses over most of frequencies. In view of these facts, several rules are adopted in the proposed algorithm to select indices of potential zero coefficients to be used in 1-norm optimization. Simulation results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed design algorithm.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.203 · 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