MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coupled Gaussian Mixtures For Modal Analysis: EM Inference and CramÉr-Rao Bounds

2025· article· W7135009206 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Berezin, Yann Rotrou, Jean-Yves Tourneret, F. Vincent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaussian processGaussianModalInferenceNoise (video)Expectation–maximization algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Order-Based Modal Analysis estimates resonances at frequencies that are integer multiples of a rotating machine’s speed. These resonances are represented as a cloud of frequency-versus-speed intersections revealing the natural modes of the mechanical structure. This paper shows that grouping these intersections can be cast as inference in a coupled affine Gaussian mixture model where each mode is represented by a straight line shared across all harmonic orders, while a uniform component captures outliers. A dedicated expectation maximisation (EM) algorithm is investigated for this model, estimating mixture weights in closed form and the other model parameters through a one-dimensional search. Cramér-Rao lower bounds are derived for the joint estimation of slopes, intercepts and mixing proportions in the proposed statistical model allowing performance of the estimators of the unknown parameters to be studied. Monte-Carlo simulations illustrate how the variances of EM estimates approach those bounds. Applied to data from an industrial turbomachine, the method extracts modal lines whose characteristics agree with historical benchmarks, despite strong deterministic harmonics and regime-dependent drifts.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207