Comparison of fault detection techniques: problem and solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haar Wave-Net (HWN) and Projection Pursuit Regression (PPR) are two useful modeling tools for pattern classification. In this case study, the two methodologies are compared with respect to the problem of misclassification close to class boundaries with sparse training data. A variety of examples were specifically tailored to elucidate their respective properties. It is observed that PPR locates the class boundaries at the midline of two classes of training data, which is a logical choice for the class boundary location, in the absence of sufficient information. For HWN, both the initial positioning of receptive fields and the density of training data near the class boundary may both have great impact on the definition of the class boundary. To solve the problem of insufficient training data, the data void can be filled with artificial data according to their nearest neighborhood. PPR propagates the effect of noisy data to a distance determined by the midpoint between the noisy data and the good data, in the projected input space. On the other hand, the orthonormal and localized properties of the Haar basis functions enable a HWN to limit the noise effect within its local receptive fields. This is a major advantage, which the HWN has over the PPR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".