MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491708922 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1212.2523

The Bayesian process control with multiple assignable causes

2012· preprint· en· W1491708922 on OpenAlexaff
Jue Wang, Chi-Guhn Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processMathematicsLimit (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationOptimal controlBayesian probabilityConditional probabilityState spaceControl limitsOptimal stoppingMarkov decision processInterval (graph theory)Markov processComputer scienceProcess (computing)StatisticsControl chart

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study an optimal process control problem with multiple assignable causes. The process is initially in-control but is subject to random transition to one of multiple out-of-control states due to assignable causes. The objective is to find an optimal stopping rule under partial observation that maximizes the total expected reward in infinite horizon. The problem is formulated as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) with the belief space consisting of state probability vectors. New observations are obtained at fixed sampling interval to update the belief vector using Bayes' theorem. Under standard assumptions, we show that a conditional control limit policy is optimal and that there exists a convex, non-increasing control limit that partitions the belief space into two individually connected control regions: a stopping region and a continuation region. We further derive the analytical bounds for the control limit. An algorithm is devised based on structural results, which considerably reduces the computation. We also shed light on the selection of optimal fixed sampling interval.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207