STATISTICAL DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION USING SEQUENTIAL PROBABILITY RATIO TESTS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of damage detection is to ascertain with confidence if damage is present or not within a structure of interest. In this study, a damage classification problem is cast in the context of the statistical pattern recognition paradigm. First, a time prediction model, called an autoregressive and autoregressive with exogenous inputs (AR-ARX) model, is fit to a vibration signal measured during a normal operating condition of the structure. When a new time signal is recorded from an unknown state of the system, the prediction errors are computed for the new data set using the time prediction model. When the structure undergoes structural degradation, it is expected that the prediction errors will increase for the damage case. Based on this premise, a damage classifier is constructed using a sequential hypothesis testing technique called the sequential probability ratio test (SPRT). The SPRT is one form of parametric statistical inference tests, and the adoption of the SPRT to damage detection problems can improve the early identification of conditions that could lead to performance degradation and safety concerns. The sequential test assumes a probability distribution of the sample data sets, and a Gaussian distribution of the sample data sets is often used. This assumption, however, might impose potentially misleading behavior on the extreme values of the data, i.e. those points in the tails of the distribution. As the problem of damage detection specifically focuses attention on the tails, the assumption of normality is likely to lead the analysis astray. To overcome this difficulty, the performance of the SPRT is improved by integrating extreme values statistics, which specifically models behavior in the tails of the distribution of interest into the SPRT.
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 | 0.025 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".