Point-Adaptive Detector Selection and Alert Confirmation for Dam GNSS Displacement Monitoring

Thresholds calibrated on historical data produce excessive false alarms when conditions change, and field-confirmed abnormal events are too scarce to supervise alarm calibration. This study develops a point-adaptive detector selection and alert confirmation workflow for dam Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) displacement monitoring. At each of nine monitoring points, a dual gate screens fifteen candidate anomaly detectors into a small point-specific ensemble, and a four-level confirmation policy—M-of-N temporal persistence, weighted detector support, an independent displacement-band escalation path, and event aggregation—converts the score into auditable alerts for engineering verification rather than a prediction of future instability. On an eighteen-month, nine-point GNSS record, the confirmation policy applied to the single detector retained at all nine points (TCN-AE) detects 68.1% of chronologically injected events, and the point-adaptive fused ensemble detects 66.7% across all nine points (block-bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) 51.4–81.9%), with a cleaned-negative alarm rate of 0.0045% and 99.98% precision on the cleaned negative class (full-negative-class false-positive rate (FPR) 0.09% as an upper bound; precision 99.68% as a lower bound, dominated by correctly flagged operational episodes); the prevalence-adjusted positive predictive value is about 41% at a 0.1% operational prevalence. Fusing the point-adaptive ensemble did not improve on a single detector granted the same policy (TCN-AE alone 68.1% and the point-wise best single 69.4% versus the fused ensemble 66.7%), so fusion is reported as a negative finding: the operating point is set by the confirmation policy, not by the choice or combination of score sources. Claims are restricted to the five of nine points with operable orange-level recall; the remaining four are routed to manual review. The workflow is an operational decision layer that turns anomaly scores into a plannable verification workload for dams where abnormal labels are scarce.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Water
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/w18212794
Primary Topic
Dam Engineering and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Point-Adaptive Detector Selection and Alert Confirmation for Dam GNSS Displacement Monitoring

Xiaohua Xu, Haijing Wang, Xiaoxiao Wang, Xin Wen et al.
Water
Dam Engineering and Safety
article

Point-Adaptive Detector Selection and Alert Confirmation for Dam GNSS Displacement Monitoring

Xiaohua Xu, Haijing Wang, Xiaoxiao Wang, Xin Wen, Delong Li, Xiaosong Yuan
article en

Abstract

Thresholds calibrated on historical data produce excessive false alarms when conditions change, and field-confirmed abnormal events are too scarce to supervise alarm calibration. This study develops a point-adaptive detector selection and alert confirmation workflow for dam Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) displacement monitoring. At each of nine monitoring points, a dual gate screens fifteen candidate anomaly detectors into a small point-specific ensemble, and a four-level confirmation policy—M-of-N temporal persistence, weighted detector support, an independent displacement-band escalation path, and event aggregation—converts the score into auditable alerts for engineering verification rather than a prediction of future instability. On an eighteen-month, nine-point GNSS record, the confirmation policy applied to the single detector retained at all nine points (TCN-AE) detects 68.1% of chronologically injected events, and the point-adaptive fused ensemble detects 66.7% across all nine points (block-bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) 51.4–81.9%), with a cleaned-negative alarm rate of 0.0045% and 99.98% precision on the cleaned negative class (full-negative-class false-positive rate (FPR) 0.09% as an upper bound; precision 99.68% as a lower bound, dominated by correctly flagged operational episodes); the prevalence-adjusted positive predictive value is about 41% at a 0.1% operational prevalence. Fusing the point-adaptive ensemble did not improve on a single detector granted the same policy (TCN-AE alone 68.1% and the point-wise best single 69.4% versus the fused ensemble 66.7%), so fusion is reported as a negative finding: the operating point is set by the confirmation policy, not by the choice or combination of score sources. Claims are restricted to the five of nine points with operable orange-level recall; the remaining four are routed to manual review. The workflow is an operational decision layer that turns anomaly scores into a plannable verification workload for dams where abnormal labels are scarce.

WaterVol. 18(21)
Dam Engineering and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon