MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900338824 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2873782

The Entropy Algorithm and Its Variants in the Fault Diagnosis of Rotating Machinery: A Review

2018· review· en· W2900338824 on OpenAlexaff
Yongbo Li, Xianzhi Wang, Zhenbao Liu, Xihui Liang, Shubin Si

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSample entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceAlgorithmMaximum entropy spectral estimationApproximate entropyJoint entropyVibrationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPrinciple of maximum entropyPattern recognition (psychology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rotating machines have been widely used in industrial engineering. The fault diagnosis of rotating machines plays a vital important role to reduce the catastrophic failures and heavy economic loss. However, the measured vibration signal of rotating machinery often represents non-linear and non-stationary characteristics, resulting in difficulty in the fault feature extraction. As a statistical measure, entropy can quantify the complexity and detect dynamic change through taking into account the non-linear behavior of time series. Therefore, entropy can be served as a promising tool to extract the dynamic characteristics of rotating machines. Recently, many studies have applied entropy in fault diagnosis of rotating machinery. This paper aims to investigate the applications of entropy for the fault characteristics extraction of rotating machines. First, various entropy methods are briefly introduced. Its foundation, application, and some improvements are described and discussed. The review is divided into eight parts: Shannon entropy, Rényi entropy, approximate entropy, sample entropy, fuzzy entropy, permutation entropy, and other entropy methods. In each part, we will review the applications using the original entropy method and the improved entropy methods, respectively. In the end, a summary and some research prospects are given.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations316
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207