MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390946740 · doi:10.1145/3639467

Tensor-Based Viterbi Algorithms for Collaborative Cloud-Edge Cyber-Physical-Social Activity Prediction

2024· article· en· W4390946740 on OpenAlexaff
Shunli Zhang, Laurence T. Yang, Yue Zhang, Zhixing Lu, Zongmin Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersEducation Department of Jiangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceViterbi algorithmCloud computingHidden Markov modelEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionTensor (intrinsic definition)Tensor decompositionKey (lock)Cyber-physical systemPrecision and recallEdge computingBig dataAlgorithmData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development and application of smart city, Cyber-Physical-Social Systems (CPSS) as its superset is becoming increasingly important, and attracts extensive attentions. For satisfying the smart requirements of CPSS design, a cloud-edge collaborative CPSS framework is first proposed in this paper. Then Coupled-Hidden-Markov-Model (CHMM) and tensor algebra are used to improve existing activity prediction methods for providing CPSS with more intelligent decision support. There are three key features (timing, periodicity and correlation) implied in CPSS data from multi-edge, which affects the accuracy of activity prediction. Thus, these features are synthetically integrated into improved Tensor-based CHMMs (T-CHMMs) to enhance the prediction accuracy. Based on the multi-edge CPSS data, three Tensor-based Viterbi Algorithms (TVA) are correspondingly proposed to solve the prediction problem for T-CHMMs. Compared with traditional matrix-based methods, the proposed TVA could more accurately compute the optimal hidden state sequences under given observation sequences. Finally, the comprehensive performances of proposed models and algorithms are validated on three open datasets by self-comparison and other-comparison. The experimental results show that the proposed methods is superior to the compared three classical methods in terms of F1 measure, average precision and average recall.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Sensor NetworksSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207