MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286569393 · doi:10.1109/sam53842.2022.9827860

Sparse Signal Recovery Using a Binary Program

2022· article· en· W4286569393 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammed Tahsin Rahman, Shahrokh Valaee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderdetermined systemBinary numberCompressed sensingRelaxation (psychology)Norm (philosophy)Computer scienceBasis pursuitAlgorithmHeuristicSignal recoverySIGNAL (programming language)Signal reconstructionSignal processingMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMatching pursuit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sparsity based signal recovery has seen great success in solving underdetermined systems of equations. This success is due, in large part, to a relaxation: the$\ell_{0}$-norm is replaced by the$\ell_{1}$-norm, which results in a convex problem. However, such a relaxation may lead to a suboptimal solution, one that may even be asymptotically biased. We propose formulating sparse signal recovery as a binary program, and we derive the conditions under which such a formulation perfectly recovers the signal support. This derivation equips us with a constraint on the dictionary's spectrum. However, designing such a dictionary is a combinatorial problem, so we suggest a heuristic which can be readily satisfied using the alternating projections algorithm. Applied to angle of arrival (AoA) estimation using a sensor array, we show how this paradigm outperforms both the basis pursuit$\ell_{1}$-norm relaxation and the Matrix Pencil method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207