A comparison of three algorithms in the filtering of a Markov-modulated non-homogeneous Poisson process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Markov-modulated non-homogeneous Poisson process (MMNPP), whose intensity process is designed to capture both the cyclical and nonrecurring trends, is considered for modelling the total count of cyber incidents. Extending the Expectation-Maximisation (EM) algorithm for the current MMPP literature, we derive the filters and smoothers to support the MMNPP online parameter estimation. A scaling transformation is introduced to address the numerical issue for large data sizes whilst maintaining accuracy. The filter- and smoother-based EM algorithms are then benchmarked to the maximum likelihood-based EM algorithm at the theoretical level. The differences emerge in the E-step of the EM procedure. Both the filtering and smoothing schemes, in conjunction with the change-of-measure technique, avoid the computing complication caused by the hidden regimes. In contrast to the usual EM algorithm, the said two algorithms could be implemented given only the incident counts data without the specific times of jumps. Within the data compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the filter-based algorithm performs better than the algorithm involving smoothers. The benchmarked algorithm may do well in calibration under the presence of extreme incident counts with an extremely low frequency; however, overfitting may occur. For most practical applications involving 2 or 3 regimes, both algorithms are superior when it comes to efficiency, real-time update, and low computational cost. The benchmarked algorithm is better when there are more regimes under relatively closer intensities. Overall, the filter-based algorithm gives better estimation, especially if there is a low-frequency regime and the flexible binning of the data set is an important consideration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".