Survey on compressed sensing over the past two decades
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compressed Sensing (CS) is a novel data acquisition theorem exploiting the signals sparsity differing from traditional Nyquist theorem in the ability of obtaining all information of such signal in fewer samples. CS can enable full use of sparsity, where the sparse signal can be reconstructed using fewer measurements. Over the past decade, several papers have investigated the feasibility of deploying CS in current applications. A lot of developments are performed in this area in order to enhance the performance and re-usability. The CS algorithm involves many phases at the transmitter side, including: transformation, compression, encoding, encryption, and modulation. Meanwhile the receiver involves: demodulation, decryption, decoding, and reconstruction. This work assembles most of the published papers in the CS area, listing the important details and showing their contributions. Each building block of the CS system is studied solely and compared with its reference in the literature. A comparative study is performed reviewing the work in the literature with respect to compression metrics, deployed reconstruction algorithm, system complexity. Tabulated results are studied with respect to hardware and memory computation complexity. Recommendations and conclusions are illustrated at the end of our work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it