Rule-based expert system for maritime anomaly detection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maritime domain operators/analysts have a mandate to be aware of all that is happening within their areas of responsibility. This mandate derives from the needs to defend sovereignty, protect infrastructures, counter terrorism, detect illegal activities, etc., and it has become more challenging in the past decade, as commercial shipping turned into a potential threat. In particular, a huge portion of the data and information made available to the operators/analysts is mundane, from maritime platforms going about normal, legitimate activities, and it is very challenging for them to detect and identify the non-mundane. To achieve such anomaly detection, they must establish numerous relevant situational facts from a variety of sensor data streams. Unfortunately, many of the facts of interest just cannot be observed; the operators/analysts thus use their knowledge of the maritime domain and their reasoning faculties to infer these facts. As they are often overwhelmed by the large amount of data and information, automated reasoning tools could be used to support them by inferring the necessary facts, ultimately providing indications and warning on a small number of anomalous events worthy of their attention. Along this line of thought, this paper describes a proof-of-concept prototype of a rule-based expert system implementing automated rule-based reasoning in support of maritime anomaly detection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it