A Non-Probabilistic Metric Derived From Condition Information for Operational Reliability Assessment of Aero-Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aero-engine is the heart of an airplane. Operational reliability assessment that aims to identify the reliability level of the aero-engine in the service phase is of great significance for improving flight safety. Traditionally, reliability assessment is carried out by statistical analysis on large failure samples. Because the operational reliability of a specific aero-engine is an individual problem lacking statistical sample data, traditional reliability assessment methods may be insufficient to assess the operational reliability of an individual aero-engine. The operational states of the aero-engine can be identified by its condition information. Changes in the condition information reflect the performance degradation of the aero-engine. Aiming at the assessment of the operational reliability of individual aero-engines, a novel similarity index (SI) is proposed by analyzing the condition information from the fault-free state, and the current state. A condition subspace is first obtained by kernel principal component analysis (KPCA). Subspace similarity is then represented by subspace angles, i.e., kernel principal angles (KPAs). The cosine function is finally utilized as a mapping function to transform the subspace angles into a similarity index. The index can be used as a non-probabilistic metric for operational reliability assessment. Only the condition information is needed for computation of the similarity index, thus it can be performed conveniently for online assessment. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated by three case studies regarding the health assessment of aero-engines subjected to system-level and component-level degradation. The positive results demonstrate that the proposed SI is an effective metric for operational reliability assessment of individual aero-engines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".