MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Forgetting Factors of the RLS Algorithm Based on Third-Order Tensor Decomposition

2024· article· en· W4405907621 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgettingTensor decompositionDecompositionComputer scienceTensor (intrinsic definition)AlgorithmOrder (exchange)MathematicsPsychologyCognitive psychologyPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently developed recursive least-squares algorithm based on third-order tensor decomposition, namely RLSTOT, proves to be efficient for the identification of long length impulse responses. Such systems can be encountered in many real-world applications, like network/acoustic echo cancellation. The RLS-TOT combines the estimates of three shorter adaptive filters, which have different convergence parameters. In this paper, we investigate some strategies for setting the forgetting factors of the RLS-TOT. These are the main parameters that control the memory of the algorithm and, consequently, its main performance criteria. Simulations performed in the framework of echo cancellation support the theoretical findings.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207