Design of <i>p</i> ‐norm linear phase FIR differentiators using adaptive modification rate artificial bee colony algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an adaptive modification rate artificial bee colony (AMR‐ABC) algorithm is proposed by incorporating a novel adaptive modification rate to adaptively balance exploration and exploitation to determine which parameters (or the number of parameters) to be updated in a solution during each iteration. The performance of the AMR‐ABC algorithm is compared to those the standard ABC algorithm and its two variants, and the Parks–McClellan algorithm for designing Type 3 (orders: 14, 26, and 38) and Type 4 (orders: 13, 25, and 37) linear phase FIR differentiators to evaluate their design capabilities. Design results have shown that the proposed AMR‐ABC algorithm (i) outperforms four other design algorithms with the lowest p ‐norm error in each of the six differentiator designs and (ii) is robust such that the same p ‐norm error solution with an equiripple amplitude response in each of the six differentiator designs can be obtained by repeating a design with a different population of randomly generated initial solutions. The filter coefficients of six linear phase FIR differentiator designs are given as benchmarks to compare the p ‐norm error performance of the AMR‐ABC algorithm to other algorithms. The AMR‐ABC algorithm is attractive to be used for optimisation in this and other design problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".