MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911681174 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2018.8619493

Team Optimal Decentralized State Estimation

2018· article· en· W2911681174 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Afshari, Aditya Mahajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorKalman filterOptimal estimationConditional expectationCovariance matrixMathematical optimizationMathematicsMinimum mean square errorCovarianceMean squared errorComputer scienceAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of optimal decentralized estimation of a linear stochastic process by multiple agents. Each agent receives a noisy observation of the state of the process and delayed observations of its neighbors (according to a pre-specified, strongly connected, communication graph). Based on their observations, all agents generate a sequence of estimates of the state of the process. The objective is to minimize the total expected weighted mean square error between the state and the agents' estimates over a finite horizon. In centralized estimation with weighted mean square error criteria, the optimal estimator does not depend on the weight matrix in the cost function. We show that this is not the case when the information is decentralized. The optimal decentralized estimates depend on the weight matrix in the cost function. In particular, we show that the optimal estimate consists of two parts: a common estimate which is the conditional mean of the state given the common information and a correction term which is a linear function of the offset of the local information from the conditional expectation of the local information given the common information. The corresponding gain depends on the weight matrix as well as on the covariance between the offset of agents' local information from the conditional expectation of the local information given the common information. We show that the common estimate can be computed from single Kalman filter and derive recursive expressions for computing the offset covariances and the estimation gains.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207