MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980241036 · doi:10.1109/lsp.2019.2945683

Joint Design of Measurement Matrix and Sparse Support Recovery Method via Deep Auto-Encoder

2019· article· en· W2980241036 on OpenAlexaff
Shuaichao Li, Wanqing Zhang, Ying Cui, Hei Victor Cheng, Wei Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitEncoderThresholdingJoint (building)Artificial intelligenceSparse matrixComputational complexity theoryMatrix (chemical analysis)Compressed sensingAlgorithmComputationSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)Computer engineeringComputer hardwareDigital signal processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sparse support recovery arises in many applications in communications and signal processing. Existing methods tackle sparse support recovery problems for a given measurement matrix, and cannot flexibly exploit the properties of sparsity patterns for improving performance. In this letter, we propose a data-driven approach to jointly design the measurement matrix and support recovery method for complex sparse signals, using auto-encoder in deep learning. The proposed architecture includes two components, an auto-encoder and a hard thresholding module. The proposed auto-encoder successfully handles complex signals using standard auto-encoder for real numbers. The proposed approach can effectively exploit properties of sparsity patterns, and is especially useful when these underlying properties do not have analytic models. In addition, the proposed approach can achieve sparse support recovery with low computational complexity. Experiments are conducted on an application example, device activity detection in grant-free massive access for massive machine type communications (mMTC). Numerical results show that the proposed approach achieves significantly better performance with much less computation time than classic methods, in the presence of extra structures in sparsity patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Signal Processing LettersSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207