MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381112559 · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101234

Fusion of heterogeneous industrial data using polygon generation & deep learning

2023· article· en· W4381112559 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Elhefnawy, Mohamed-Salah Ouali, Ahmed Ragab, Mouloud Amazouz

Bibliographic record

VenueResults in Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer sciencePolygon (computer graphics)Raw dataSensor fusionProcess (computing)Data miningFusionArtificial intelligenceDeep learningRendering (computer graphics)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of industrial data imposes several challenges. These data are acquired from heterogeneous sources such as sensors, cameras, IoT, etc, and are stored in different structures and formats with different sampling frequencies. They are also stored in isolated silos in different locations which hinders their exploitation. Therefore, there is a clear need to integrate these disconnected data silos at different processing levels and make them clean, easily accessible, and fully exploitable. This paper proposes a data fusion method that merges heterogeneous sources of data at raw, information, and decision levels using polygon generation and deep learning (DL) techniques. An innovative polygon generation technique is proposed to preprocess each data source and convert it into powerful representations that capture all possible relationships in the data, thus extracting the maximum knowledge and achieving better prediction accuracy of the corresponding DL method. The proposed method is targeting challenging data modeling problems found in industrial processes. It is validated successfully using a case study in the realm of process system engineering. The results obtained demonstrate that the proposed fusion method is more accurate, with a minimum of 20% improvement, compared to other methods previously used in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResults in EngineeringSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207