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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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