Application of Cost Matrices and Cost Curves to Enhance Diagnostic Health Management Metrics for Gas Turbine Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistically based metrics, incorporating operating costs, for gas turbine engine diagnostic systems are required to evaluate competing products fairly and to establish a convincing business case. Diagnostic algorithm validation often includes engine testing with implanted faults. The implantation rate is rarely, if ever, representative of the true fault occurrence rate and the sample size is very small. Costs related to diagnostic outcomes have a significant effect on the utility of a given algorithm and need to be incorporated into the assessment. Techniques for assessing diagnostics are drawn from the literature and modified for application to gas turbine applications. The techniques are modified with computational experiments and the application demonstrated through examples. New techniques are compared to the traditional methods and the advantages presented. A technique is presented to convert a confusion matrix with a non-representative fault distribution to one representative of the expected distribution. The small sample size associated with fault implantation studies requires a confidence interval on the results to provide valid comparisons and a method for calculating confidence intervals, including on zero entries, is presented. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves evaluate diagnostic system performance across a range of threshold settings. This allows an algorithm’s ability to be assessed over a range of possible usage. Cost curves are analogous to ROC curves but offer several advantages. The techniques for applying cost curves to diagnostic algorithms are presented and their advantages over ROC curves are outlined. This paper provides techniques for more informed comparison of diagnostic algorithms, possibly preventing incorrect assessment due to small sample sizes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".