MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884043659 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2018.2850368

Robust Consensus Nonlinear Information Filter for Distributed Sensor Networks With Measurement Outliers

2018· article· en· W2884043659 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Dong, Zhongliang Jing, Henry Leung, Kai Shen, Minzhe Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOutlierFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceNonlinear systemConsensusGaussianEstimatorDivergence (linguistics)Convergence (economics)Nonlinear filterInformation filtering systemAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsFilter designMulti-agent system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional consensus-based filters are widely used in distributed sensor networks. However, they suffer from divergence when outliers occur. This paper proposes a robust consensus nonlinear information filter for distributed state estimation with measurement outliers. Unlike the Gaussian assumption in traditional consensus filers, the measurement of each sensor node is modeled here as a multivariate Student- t process with unknown parameters of the sufficient statistic. The variational Bayesian method is employed to jointly estimate the state and the parameters. As the state and parameters are coupled, the updated equation can be solved by fixed point iteration. The centralized outliers robust information filter is first derived for multiple sensors. It is then extended to a distributed version to fuse information from multiple interconnected local estimators. The integral of the consensus-based nonlinear filter is approximated by Gaussian approximation under the framework of the information filter. The consensuses are based on both likelihoods and prior probability distributions. The consensus and convergence of the proposed method are also analyzed. Simulation results show that the proposed approach is effective in dealing with outliers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations65
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207