MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990488703 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13619

Investigation of Kronecker-based Recovery in Compressive Sensing

2019· dissertation· en· W2990488703 on OpenAlexaff
Dipayan Mitra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingKronecker deltaMatrix (chemical analysis)SIGNAL (programming language)AlgorithmBasis (linear algebra)Mutual coherenceKronecker productComputer scienceSignal recoveryCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Signal processingMathematicsMaterials scienceStatisticsPhysicsTelecommunicationsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, modified Kronecker-based compressive sensing (CS) 1-D and 2-D recovery techniques with random and deterministic measurement matrices are investigated to improve signal quality despite resource restricted acquisition. For regular recovery of individual segments of the compressed signal, the measurement and sparsifying matrices are required. While the regular Kronecker-based CS recovery technique uses expanded Kronecker measurement and basis matrices to achieve one-time recovery of a collection of compressively acquired segmented signals, in the proposed modified Kronecker-based CS recovery, a new basis matrix, which is an expanded and dense version of the original basis matrix, is used. The reduction of mutual coherence between the expanded Kronecker measurement and the expanded basis matrix leads to improvement in the recovery of the signal. Deterministic sensing further improves the recovery and preserves the structure of the acquired signal in the compressed domain which can be exploited for compressed domain signal processing algorithms. Khedr, Mr. Zachary Baird who helped me in all possible ways. I would also like to thank NSERC & Carleton University for supporting the work and last but not the least my parents for their unwavering support. 6.4 Feature-based template matching from compressed high resolution images. (A) Original image compressed at CR = 50%. (B) Template generated from uncompressed image. (C) Outlier removed match point identification using SURF algorithm. (D) Bounding box indicating the position of the template in the compressed image. . . . . . . . . . . .

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207