MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385723988 · doi:10.1002/acs.3667

Approximate Gaussian variance inference for state‐space models

2023· article· en· W4385723988 on OpenAlexafffund
Bhargob Deka, James A. Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHydro-QuébecInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsUnivariateKalman filterInferenceCovariance matrixState spaceGaussian processVariance (accounting)Computer scienceAlgorithmGaussianState-space representationCovarianceBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityMathematicsMultivariate statisticsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary State‐space models require an accurate knowledge of the process error () and measurement error () covariance matrices for exact state estimation. Even though the matrix can be, in many situations, considered to be known from the measuring instrument specifications, it is still a challenge to infer the matrix online while providing reliable estimates along with a low computational cost. In this article, we propose an analytically tractable online Bayesian inference method for inferring the matrix in state‐space models. We refer to this method as approximate Gaussian variance inference (AGVI) using which we are able to treat the error variance and covariance terms in the full matrix as Gaussian hidden states and infer them simultaneously with the other hidden states in a closed‐form manner. The two case studies show that the method is able to provide statistically consistent estimates for the mean and uncertainties of the error variance terms for univariate and multivariate cases. The method also exceeds the performance of the existing adaptive Kalman filter methods both in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency.

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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal ProcessingSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207