MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cramer-Rao Bound for Source Localization of Ingested Sources in the Human Intestine Using Finite-Element Method

2023· article· en· W4386208013 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandar Jeremić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCramér–Rao boundEstimatorAlgorithmUpper and lower boundsComputer scienceFinite element methodRepresentation (politics)Inverse problemSIGNAL (programming language)Estimation theoryMathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we propose a computational framework using bioelectromagnetic equations for a general electromagnetic source that can account for both RF and microwave sources. We then calculate corresponding EM scatter field using realistic, fully segmented geometry of the human tract and finite-element model. We derive the corresponding inverse model for WEC localization and estimate the location and orientation of the WEC. In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm we also derive Cramer-Rao bound which is a commonly used tool in statistical signal processing used to evaluate performance of the unbiased estimators. Using our previous work we also account for the gastric pacemaker activity and evaluate its effect on the source localization accuracy and Cramer-Rao bound. In order to provide potentially useful guidelines we examine several different configurations using different source intensities, frequencies and coil orientations. As a result by calculating the lowest possible variance of the localization algorithms we expect to propose an efficient mathematical representation for the source that enables most accurate localization. We then demonstrate applicability of our results by performing numerical simulations and comparing the estimation accuracy for various configurations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207