MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047408831 · doi:10.1515/eqc-2013-0013

An Application of EM Test for the Bayesian Change Point Problem

2013· article· en· W2047408831 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

VenueEconomic Quality Control · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityMathematicsExpectation–maximization algorithmExponential familyHomogeneity (statistics)Mathematical optimizationComputer sciencePrior probabilityIdentification (biology)MaximizationAlgorithmApplied mathematicsStatisticsMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In any manufacturing process, identification of changes in the process conditions is of great interest. Recently, a Bayesian approach for the identification of the change in process mean was proposed assuming that the response of interest follow an exponential family distribution. In this approach, the expectation – maximization (EM) algorithm was used for estimating the process parameters. In general, the EM algorithm is computationally intensive and the optimality depends on the initial values of the parameters chosen. We extend the idea of the EM test for homogeneity to extend this Bayesian approach to the change point problem. Our simulations studies show that the developed EM test procedure converges at a faster rate than the original EM approach. Our studies also show that the EM test with binomial prior distribution leads to solutions very close to the true values. We have applied our approach to two case examples.

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)0.003
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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.323 · 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