MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071532409 · doi:10.1109/isit.2014.6874930

A Bayesian approach to two-sided quickest change detection

2014· article· en· W2071532409 on OpenAlexaff
James Falt, Steven D. Blostein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCUSUMChange detectionIndependent and identically distributed random variablesProbability density functionConstant (computer programming)MathematicsAsymptotically optimal algorithmBayesian probabilityRandom variableFunction (biology)Sequence (biology)Statistical hypothesis testingAlgorithmComputationExponential functionComputer scienceApplied mathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of detecting an abrupt change in a sequence of independent and identically distributed (IID) random variables is addressed. Sequentially received samples are IID both before and after a single unknown change time. Unlike previous approaches to change detection that assume a known probability density function (PDF) for the observations at the start, the problem formulated here is to detect a change between two given PDFs in either direction, meaning that at any given time the number of hypotheses to be tracked is always twice the number of samples received. A Bayesian multiple hypothesis approach is proposed and shown to have the following properties: (i) unlike previous tests that operate with a threshold, the minimum-cost hypothesis is tracked through time, including that of no change. (ii) under an exponential delay cost function and suitable parameter choices, the proposed procedure's probability of detecting a change in the incorrect direction asymptotically vanishes with time, (iii) the method is recursive with constant computation per unit time, and (iv) error probabilities may be directly traded off with average delay. Performance results using simulation confirm the derived properties and also reveal that the additional average delay after a transient period corresponding to when the starting state is uncertain, compared to that of the optimal one-sided test, CUSUM, is modest.

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)0.022
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207