MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493703579 · doi:10.1111/risa.12112

Bayesian Classifiers Applied to the Tennessee Eastman Process

2013· article· en· W1493703579 on OpenAlexafffund
Edimilson Batista dos Santos, Nelson F. F. Ebecken, Estevam Hruschka, Ali Elkamel, Chandra Mouli R. Madhuranthakam

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMarkov blanketDecision treeComputer scienceBayesian networkNaive Bayes classifierClassifier (UML)Bayesian probabilityProbabilistic classificationData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Markov chainMarkov modelSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault diagnosis includes the main task of classification. Bayesian networks (BNs) present several advantages in the classification task, and previous works have suggested their use as classifiers. Because a classifier is often only one part of a larger decision process, this article proposes, for industrial process diagnosis, the use of a Bayesian method called dynamic Markov blanket classifier that has as its main goal the induction of accurate Bayesian classifiers having dependable probability estimates and revealing actual relationships among the most relevant variables. In addition, a new method, named variable ordering multiple offspring sampling capable of inducing a BN to be used as a classifier, is presented. The performance of these methods is assessed on the data of a benchmark problem known as the Tennessee Eastman process. The obtained results are compared with naive Bayes and tree augmented network classifiers, and confirm that both proposed algorithms can provide good classification accuracies as well as knowledge about relevant variables.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207