MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029815899 · doi:10.3390/a13060135

A Recursive Least-Squares Algorithm for the Identification of Trilinear Forms

2020· article· en· W3029815899 on OpenAlexaff
Camelia Elisei-Iliescu, Laura-Maria Dogariu, Constantin Paleologu, Jacob Benesty, Andrei-Alexandru Enescu, Silviu Ciochină

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecursive least squares filterAlgorithmImpulse responseLeast-squares function approximationIdentification (biology)Impulse (physics)Rank (graph theory)Tensor (intrinsic definition)MathematicsComputer scienceTensor decompositionSystem identificationRank conditionMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsAdaptive filterStatisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-dimensional system identification problems can be efficiently addressed based on tensor decompositions and modelling. In this paper, we design a recursive least-squares (RLS) algorithm tailored for the identification of trilinear forms, namely RLS-TF. In our framework, the trilinear form is related to the decomposition of a third-order tensor (of rank one). The proposed RLS-TF algorithm acts on the individual components of the global impulse response, thus being efficient in terms of both performance and complexity. Simulation results indicate that the proposed solution outperforms the conventional RLS algorithm (which handles only the global impulse response), but also the previously developed trilinear counterparts based on the least-mean- squares 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.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicTensor decomposition and applicationsFrench-language works237,207