A Bayesian Deep Learning RUL Framework Integrating Epistemic and Aleatoric Uncertainties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed the prominent advancements of deep learning (DL) in the arsenal of prognostics and health management. However, the prognostic uncertainty problem extensively existed in industrial devices is not addressed by most DL approaches. This article formulates a novel Bayesian Deep Learning (BDL) framework to characterize the prognostic uncertainties. A distinguished advantage of the framework is its capacity of capturing the comprehensive effects of two critical uncertainties: 1) epistemic uncertainty, accounting for the uncertainty in the model, and 2) aleatoric uncertainty, representing the impact of random disturbance, such as measurement errors. The former arises from the variability of the model weights, and the latter is characterized by selected lifetime distributions. We integrate both uncertainties by defining BDL as priors of lifetime parameters. A sequential Bayesian boosting algorithm is executed to improve the estimation accuracy and compress the credible intervals. The superior prediction performance of our framework is validated by a real-world dataset collected from hydraulic mechanisms of circuit breakers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it