Intelligent Machining Monitoring Using Sound Signal Processed With the Wavelet Method and a Self-Organizing Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A methodology was developed using the sound signal based on wavelet analysis and self-organizing neural network (NN) to monitor cutting accuracy in an extremely noisy machining process. Sawing experiments were conducted under different levels of feed speed, depth of cut, and rotation speed to monitor the longitudinal waviness of sawn samples using laser displacement sensors as an index of cutting accuracy and sawing deviation. The sound of the cutting and idling processes was recorded using a microphone. The acquired acoustic signals were pre-processed using the wavelet de-noising method for background noise elimination. As the signal still encompasses the low-frequency components corresponding to the idling process (machine motor, saw vibration, etc.), a systematic wavelet thresholding method was applied to the coefficients of the decomposed signal at different levels to discard the sound signal components associated with the idling process. Inverse wavelet transform was then applied to make a synthesized signal from the original one. Different features were extracted from the original and synthesized signals and used to train a self-organizing NN. Group method of data handling (GMDH) NN was utilized for predicting the waviness from the sensory features. The GMDH model trained with features extracted from the synthesized signal outperformed the one trained with the original signal features. The results suggested that employing the proposed wavelet-based methodology enables the acoustic signal to be used in monitoring the manufacturing processes in an extremely noisy environment. Self-organizing NN was shown to have a promising performance without facing the difficulties in finding the network optimal architecture, which is a typical challenge in the conventional backpropagation NNs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".