ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Towards Reliable Parameter Extraction in MEMS Final Module Testing Using Bayesian Inference.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modeling and Reliability Analysis of MEMS Gyroscope Rotor Parameters under Vibrational Stress.Micromachines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) testing high overall precision and reliability are essential. Due to the additional requirement of runtime efficiency, machine learning methods have been investigated in recent years. However, these methods are often associated with inherent challenges concerning uncertainty quantification and guarantees of reliability. The goal of this paper is therefore to present a new machine learning approach in MEMS testing based on Bayesian inference to determine whether the estimation is trustworthy. The overall predictive performance as well as the uncertainty quantification are evaluated with four methods: Bayesian neural network, mixture density network, probabilistic Bayesian neural network and BayesFlow. They are investigated under the variation in training set size, different additive noise levels, and an out-of-distribution condition, namely the variation in the damping factor of the MEMS device. Furthermore, epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties are evaluated and discussed to encourage thorough inspection of models before deployment striving for reliable and efficient parameter estimation during final module testing of MEMS devices. BayesFlow consistently outperformed the other methods in terms of the predictive performance. As the probabilistic Bayesian neural network enables the distinction between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, their share of the total uncertainty has been intensively studied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.