MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914430225 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.2018.8623823

A Critical Study on the Importance of Feature Extraction and Selection for Diagnosing Bearing Defects

2018· article· en· W2914430225 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Farajzadeh-Zanjani, Roozbeh Razavi‐Far, Mehrdad Saif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature extractionFeature selectionComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSignal processingFault (geology)Time domainData miningFrequency domainBearing (navigation)SIGNAL (programming language)Machine learningComputer visionDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a general data-driven diagnostic scheme to classify bearing faults in induction motors. Case western reserve university bearing data center are used to create two scenarios with different fault diameters of 0.007 and 0.014 that are induced in the inner race, the ball and the outer race. The diagnostic system could successfully conduct signal processing and classification steps to achieve an accurate condition assessment of the motor. In this work, the vibration signal is decomposed into several number of components by means of five different stateof-the-arts signal processing techniques. The extracted features which belong to the Time-domain, the Frequency-domain and the Time-Frequency domain are employed to create a pool of diverse features. Moreover, a feature selection strategy based on the correlation of the features to motor operating conditions is assessed. The obtained result shows that the combination of the most correlated features could provide an informative feature set for the fault classification and improve the diagnostic accuracy. In addition, feature selection can reduce the model complexity and facilitate the learning process of the fault classifiers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207