MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995884653 · doi:10.1109/icca.2013.6564988

Expectation maximization approach to gross error and change point detection

2013· article· en· W1995884653 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
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximizationExpectation–maximization algorithmComputer scienceProcess (computing)Bayesian probabilityPrior probabilityProbabilistic logicIdentification (biology)Error detection and correctionObservational errorPoint (geometry)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationEconometricsMaximum likelihoodStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accuracy of process measurements is critical in process operation and control. However, in reality, miscalibration or malfunctioning of instruments may introduce bias or gross error resulting in abnormal process operation and poor control performance. Timely identification of these biased instruments and rectifying them have a great impact on process control performance. In this paper, two new probabilistic methods based on Expectation Maximization are proposed for detecting biased instruments as well as detecting the abnormal time point. Performances of the proposed EM based algorithms are compared with Bayesian algorithm. Simulation results show the power and efficiency of EM in gross error detection especially when the priors are chosen improperly.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207