Employing machine learning techniques in monitoring autocorrelated profiles
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 In profile monitoring, it is usually assumed that the observations between or within each profile are independent of each other. However, this assumption is often violated in manufacturing practice, and it is of utmost importance to carefully consider autocorrelation effects in the underlying models for profile monitoring. For this reason, various statistical control charts have been proposed to monitor profiles when between- or within-data is correlated in Phase II, in which the main aim is to develop control charts with quicker detection ability. As a novel approach, this study aims to employ machine learning techniques as control charts instead of statistical approaches in monitoring profiles with between-profile autocorrelations. Specifically, new input features based on conventional statistical control chart statistics and normalized estimated parameters are defined that are capable of adequately accounting for the between-autocorrelation effect of profiles. In addition, six machine learning techniques are extended and compared by means of Monte Carlo simulations. The simulation results indicate that machine learning techniques can obtain more accurate results compared with statistical control charts. Moreover, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems outperform other machine learning techniques and the conventional statistical control charts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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