MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283373337 · doi:10.3390/rs14133024

FIR, IIR and Wavelet Algorithms for the Rigorous Filtering of GOCE SGG Data to the GOCE MBW

2022· article· en· W4283373337 on OpenAlexaff
Eleftherios A. Pitenis, Elisavet G. Mamagiannou, Dimitrios A. Natsiopoulos, Georgios S. Vergos, I. N. Tziavos, Vassilios Grigoriadis, Michael G. Sideris

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation
KeywordsInfinite impulse responseAlgorithmFinite impulse responseComputer scienceResidualNoise (video)WaveletGravitational fieldKalman filterGeodesyRemote sensingGeologyFilter (signal processing)Digital filterArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) data are strongly affected by noise and long-wavelength errors outside the satellite measurement bandwidth (MBW). One of the main goals in utilizing GOCE data for gravity field modeling is the application of filtering techniques that can remove gross errors and reduce low-frequency errors and high-frequency noise while preserving the original signal. This paper aims to present and analyze three filtering strategies used to de-noise the GOCE Level 2 data from long-wavelength correlated errors and noise. These strategies are Finite Impulse Response (FIR), Infinite Impulse Response (IIR), and Wavelet Multi-resolution Analysis (WL), which have been applied to GOCE residual second order derivatives of the gravity potential. Several experiments were performed for each filtering scheme in order to identify the ideal filtering parameters. The outcomes indicate that all the suggested filtering strategies proved to be effective in removing low-frequency errors while preserving the signals in the GOCE MBW, with FIR filtering providing the overall best results.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207