MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899347417 · doi:10.1115/detc2018-85253

Cutting Tool Wear Estimation Using a Genetic Algorithm Based Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network

2018· article· en· W2899347417 on OpenAlexafffund
Wennian Yu, Chris K. Mechefske, Il Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceTerm (time)Long short term memoryGenetic algorithmSet (abstract data type)AutomationMachine learningTime seriesTraining setData miningArtificial intelligenceTool wearAlgorithmRecurrent neural networkEngineeringMachining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On-line cutting tool wear monitoring plays a critical role in industry automation and has the potential to significantly increase productivity and improve product quality. In this study, we employed the long short-term memory neural network as the decision model of the tool condition monitoring system to predict the amount of cutting tool wear. Compared with the traditional recurrent neural networks, the long short-term memory (LSTM) network can capture the long-term dependencies within a time series. To further decrease the training error and enhance the prediction performance of the network, a genetic algorithm (GA) is applied to find the initial values of the networks that minimize the objective (training error). The proposed methodology is applied on a publicly available milling data set. Comparisons of the prediction performance between the Elman network and the LSTM with and without using GA optimization proves that the GA based LSTM shows an enhanced prediction performance on this data set.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207