MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133078887

Distributed diagnosis for discrete-event systems

2004· dissertation· W7133078887 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Test Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught Fund
KeywordsScalabilityComputational complexity theoryProbabilistic logicComputationAmbiguitySpace (punctuation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis we propose a general framework for distributed diagnosis. Each diagnosis instance consists of two phases: local estimation, and inter-component communication for consistency. For the latter phase we introduce the concepts of supremal global support (for global consistency) and supremal local support (for local consistency). We provide a computational procedure CPGC for achieving supremal global support, and CPLC for supremal local support. The two supremal supports lead to distinct distributed diagnosis problems. It turns out that supremal global support results in better quality of diagnosis in the sense that fewer fault candidates are reported in each diagnosis instance; but supremal local support results in a computational procedure that is better scalable as long as it can terminate. In practice the two supremal supports may be combined for a satisfactory tradeoff between quality of diagnosis and scalability of the diagnoser. To reduce time complexity of CPGC, we propose a hierarchical computational procedure, utilizing multi-resolution diagnosis. Although high-level abstract models for hierarchical computation need extra memory, our numerical results show that the overall space complexity as measured by memory usage in storing both the models and the intermediate computational results is no worse (and in some cases better) than the space complexity in our non-hierarchical approaches. Finally, we explain how to use probabilistic reasoning to reduce diagnostic ambiguity without inserting extra sensors.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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