MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113518017 · doi:10.1109/aero.2009.4839690

Hierarchical fault diagnosis and health monitoring in multi-platform space systems

2009· article· en· W2113518017 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Barua, K. Khorasani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnavailabilityComputer scienceSpacecraftSpace explorationFault (geology)Fault detection and isolationTelemetryHierarchyReliability engineeringData miningReal-time computingMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current spacecraft health monitoring and fault diagnosis practices that involve around-the-clock limit-checking and trend analysis on large amount of telemetry data, do not scale well for future multi-platform space missions due to the presence of larger amount of telemetry data and an increasing need to make the long-duration missions cost-effective by limiting the size of the operations team. The need for efficient utilization of telemetry data by employing machine learning and rule-based reasoning has been pointed out in the literature in order to enhance diagnostic performance and assist the less-experienced personnel in performing monitoring and diagnosis tasks. In this research we develop a systematic and transparent fault diagnosis methodology within a hierarchical fault diagnosis framework for multiplatform space systems. Our proposed Bayesian network-based hierarchical fault diagnosis methodology allows fuzzy rule-based reasoning at different components in the hierarchy. Due to the unavailability of real formation flight data, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methodology by using synthetic data of a leader-follower formation flight. Our proposed methodology is likely to enhance the level of autonomy in ground support based spacecraft health monitoring and fault diagnosis.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207