Sensor fusion with high‐order moments constraints using projection‐based neural network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The existing sensor fusion methods mainly follow two approaches, including Gaussian and Non‐Gaussian‐based sensor fusion approaches. In the first approach, fusion weights are determined based on the second moment. This approach is unable to account for high‐order moments; thus, it is not accurate for non‐Gaussian sensors. In the second approach, the fusion weights are determined using distribution functions of sensor data. Though this method is more accurate than Gaussian‐based sensor fusion, it is a sophisticated method as it requires all moments information of each sensor, which is either not available or at least hard to be identified. Here, we propose an alternative way to determine the fusion weights by a limited number of n (>2) moment information of data. The proposed method makes trades off between accuracy and complexity. The other problem, which has not been studied in the literature, is existence of constraints on moments. The proposed method can address this problem as well. To do this, a projection‐based neural network‐based optimization method is used to calculate the optimal fusion weights that satisfy moment constraints. A practical application of the proposed sensor fusion method on predicting occupancy for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) is conducted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it