Pattern‐based prognostic methodology for condition‐based maintenance using selected and weighted survival curves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes a pattern‐based prognostic methodology that combines logical analysis of data (LAD) as an event‐driven diagnostic technique, and Kaplan–Meier (KM) estimator as a time‐driven technique. LAD captures the effect of the instantaneous conditions on the health state of a monitored system, while KM estimates the baseline reliability curve that reflects the effect of aging, based on the observed historical failure times. LAD is used to generate a set of patterns from the observed values of covariates that represent the operating conditions and condition indicators. A pattern selection procedure is carried out to select the set of significant patterns from all the generated patterns. A survival curve is estimated, for each subset of observations covered by each selected pattern. A weight that reflects the coverage of each pattern is assigned to its survival curve. Given a recently collected observation, the survival curve of a monitored system is updated on the basis of the patterns covering that observation. The updated curve is then used to predict the remaining useful life of the monitored system. The proposed methodology is validated using a common dataset in prognostics: the turbofan degradation dataset that is available at NASA prognostic repository. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".