MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925343827 · doi:10.1002/aic.14864

<scp>B</scp>ayesian method for simultaneous gross error detection and data reconciliation

2015· article· en· W1925343827 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuan Yuan, Shima Khatibisepehr, Biao Huang, Zukui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsCovarianceError detection and correctionNonlinear systemAlgorithmObservational errorBayesian probabilityLinearizationComputer scienceInferenceA priori and a posterioriProcess (computing)Covariance matrixMathematicsMathematical optimizationStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process measurements collected from daily industrial plant operations are essential for process monitoring, control, and optimization. However, those measurements are generally corrupted by errors, which include gross errors and random errors. Conventionally, those two types of errors were addressed separately by gross error detection and data reconciliation. Solving the simultaneous gross error detection and data reconciliation problem using the hierarchical Bayesian inference technique is focused. The proposed approach solves the following problems in a unified framework. First, it detects which measurements contain gross errors. Second, the magnitudes of the gross errors are estimated. Third, the covariance matrix of the random errors is estimated. Finally, data reconciliation is performed using the maximum a posteriori estimation. The proposed algorithm is applicable to both linear and nonlinear systems. For nonlinear case, the algorithm does not involve any linearization or approximation steps. Numerical case studies are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 3232–3248, 2015

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207