MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abnormality Detection with Rényi Divergence for Univariate Gaussian Data

2019· article· en· W3004758452 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Xiong, Yindi Jing, Tongwen Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivergence (linguistics)UnivariateKullback–Leibler divergenceGaussianIndependent and identically distributed random variablesConstant false alarm rateMathematicsTest statisticAlgorithmMonte Carlo methodStatisticStatisticsStatistical hypothesis testingMultiplicative functionComputer scienceRandom variableMultivariate statisticsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the abnormality detection based on the Rényi divergence with the divergence order between 0 and 1. It is assumed that univariate Gaussian data samples are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). The distance between the estimated distribution from observed data and that from historical data under the normal condition is quantified by the Rényi divergence, the proposed test statistic. The false alarm rate (FAR) and the missed alarm rate (MAR) are derived analytically based on the distribution of the Rényi divergence. Under the abnormal condition, constant bias and multiplicative faults are considered. Taking both the FAR and MAR into consideration, the proposed detection algorithm can adaptively optimize the divergence order and threshold according to observed data. In the simulation, the analytical FAR and MAR results are verified by the Monte Carlo simulations, and the proposed algorithm is shown to outperform the Kullback-Leibler divergence based method.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control Systems→French-language works237,207→