MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950674809 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1203.0541

Hypothesis Testing and Decision Theoretic Approach for Fault Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks

2012· preprint· en· W2950674809 on OpenAlexaff
Mrinal Nandi, Amiya Nayak, Bimal Roy, Santanu Sarkar

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceFault detection and isolationReal-time computingFault (geology)Statistical hypothesis testingProcess (computing)Noise (video)Bayes' theoremSequential probability ratio testAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceData miningBayesian probabilityStatisticsMathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensor networks aim at monitoring their surroundings for event detection and object tracking. But due to failure or death of sensors, false signal can be transmitted. In this paper, we consider the problem of fault detection in wireless sensor network (WSN), in particular, addressing both the noise-related measurement error and sensor fault simultaneously in fault detection. We assume that the sensors are placed at the center of a square (or hexagonal) cell in region of interest (ROI) and, if the event occurs, it occurs at a particular cell of the ROI. We propose fault detection schemes that take into account error probabilities into the optimal event detection process. We develop the schemes under the consideration of Neyman-Pearson test and Bayes test.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207