Iterative deblending with robust Fourier thresholding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present piece offers a generalized view of the classic Fourier thresholding, which could be derived in two ways. One of these corresponds to an `l2 −`l0 regularization subproblem with Fourier sensing matrices. In the case of non-Gaussian noise, such as blending noise, one can generalize it by adopting alternative robust misfit terms, and solve it using iterative hard thresholding algorithms. In this way, one imposes sparsity in the transform that describes the data and robustness on the data itself. In doing so, this paper also illustrates how iterative deblending can be optimized using robust projection operators. Such denoisers provide strong blending noise attenuation at the early stages of iterative deblending, thereby improving its convergence rates. The above could be illustrated using a numerically blended dataset. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 Session Start Time: 9:20 AM Presentation Time: 10:35 AM Location: Poster Station 13 Presentation Type: Poster
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".