ICRICS: Iterative Compensation Recovery for Image Compressive Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Closed-loop architecture is widely utilized in automatic control systems and attains distinguished dynamic and static performance. However, classical compressive sensing systems employ an open-loop architecture with separated sampling and reconstruction units. Therefore, a method of iterative compensation recovery for image compressive sensing (ICRICS) is proposed by introducing a closed-loop framework into traditional compressive sensing systems. The proposed method depends on any existing approaches and upgrades their reconstruction performance by adding a negative feedback structure. Theoretical analysis of the negative feedback of compressive sensing systems is performed. An approximate mathematical proof of the effectiveness of the proposed method is also provided. Simulation experiments on more than 3 image datasets show that the proposed method is superior to 10 competing approaches in reconstruction performance. The maximum increment of the average peak signal-to-noise ratio is 4.36 dB, and the maximum increment of the average structural similarity is 0.034 based on one dataset. The proposed method based on a negative feedback mechanism can efficiently correct the recovery error in the existing image compressive sensing systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".