A Weighted Moving Average-based Approach for Cleaning Sensor Data
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
Nowadays, wireless sensor networks have been widely used in many monitoring applications. Due to the low quality of sensors and random effects of the environments, however, it is well known that the collected sensor data are noisy. Therefore, it is very critical to clean the sensor data before using them to answer queries or conduct data analysis. Popular data cleaning approaches, such as the moving average, cannot meet the requirements of both energy efficiency and quick response time in many sensor related applications. In this paper, we propose a hybrid sensor data cleaning approach with confidence. Specifically, we propose a smart weighted moving average (WMA) algorithm that collects confidence data from sensors and computes the weighted moving average. The rationale behind the WMA algorithm is to draw more samples for a particular value that is of great importance to the moving average, and provide higher confidence weight for this value, such that this important value can be quickly reflected in the moving average. Based on our extensive simulation results, we demonstrate that, compared to the simple moving average (SMA), our WMA approach can effectively clean data and offer quick response time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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