MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979587793 · doi:10.1115/dscc2014-5928

Fault Prognosis of Roller Bearings Using the Adaptive Auto-Step Reinforcement Learning Technique

2014· article· en· W1979587793 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamed Afshari, Dhafar Al-Ani, Saeid Habibi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Fault (geology)Bearing (navigation)Rate of convergenceComputer scienceAdaptive filterFracture mechanicsTransient (computer programming)Filter (signal processing)AlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Structural engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the implementation of a new adaptation algorithm to model the crack propagation of roller bearings and to predict their Remaining Useful Life (RUL). The developed algorithm is designed based on the adaptive auto-step reinforcement-learning method combined with a crack propagation model. The advantage of this algorithm is that it is now able to not only estimate the defect growth rate online, but also to predict the RUL of a roller bearing element. The presented defect propagation model incorporated in this work is an extension to the Paris’s formula that is well known in the fracture mechanics community. Further, a new adaptive filtering technique, referred to as the auto-step, is presented in this paper and is used to estimate the parameters of the crack propagation model in real-time. The prognosis structure is first compares values of both the predicted and the measured defect sizes, and then, tunes the parameters of the crack propagation model. Simulation results obtained by the auto-step method are then compared with results obtained by the Recursive Least Square (RLS) adaptive filter. The proposed prognosis strategy is distinct itself from other approaches in terms of obtaining higher accuracy as well as faster convergence rate.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207