Quality prediction using functional linear regression with in-situ image and functional sensor data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies a general regression model for a scalar quality response with mixed types of process predictors including process images, functional sensing signals, and scalar process setup attributes. To represent a set of time-dependent process images, a third-order tensor is employed for preserving not only the spatial correlation of pixels within one image but also the temporal dependency among a sequence of images. Although there exist some papers dealing with either tensorial or functional regression, there is little research to thoroughly study a regression model consisting of both tensorial and functional predictors. For simplicity, the presented regression model is called functional linear regression with tensorial and functional predictor (FLR-TFP). The advantage of the presented FLR-TFP model, which is compared to the classical stack-up strategy, is that FLR-TFP can handle both tensorial and functional predictors without destroying the data correlation structure. To estimate an FLR-TFP model, this article presents a new alternating Elastic Net (AEN) estimation algorithm, in which the problem is reformed as three sub-problems by iteratively estimating each group of tensorial, functional, and scalar parameters. To execute the proposed AEN algorithm, a systematic approach is developed to effectively determine the initial running sequence among three sub-problems. The performance of the FLR-TFP model is evaluated using simulations and a real-world case study of friction stir blind riveting process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".