MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036859149 · doi:10.1002/aic.16538

Subspace based model identification for missing data

2020· article· en· W3036859149 on OpenAlexaff
Nikesh Patel, Prashant Mhaskar, Brandon Corbett

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataSubspace topologySingular value decompositionImputation (statistics)Leverage (statistics)Computer sciencePartial least squares regressionSystem identificationData miningAlgorithmIdentification (biology)Nonlinear systemMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article addresses the problem of missing process data in data‐driven dynamic modeling approaches. The key motivation is to avoid using imputation methods or deletion of key process information when identifying the model, and utilizing the rest of the information appropriately at the model building stage. To this end, a novel approach is developed that adapts nonlinear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) algorithms from both partial least squares (PLS) and principle component analysis (PCA) for use in subspace identification. Note that the existing subspace identification approaches often utilize singular value decomposition (SVD) as part of the identification algorithm which is generally not robust to missing data. In contrast, the NIPALS algorithms used in this work leverage the inherent correlation structure of the identification matrices to minimize the impact of missing data values while generating an accurate system model. Furthermore, in computing the system matrices, the calculated scores from the latent variable methods are utilized as the states of the system. The efficacy of the proposed approach is shown via simulation of a nonlinear batch process example.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207