MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113986652 · doi:10.1177/1687814020984388

Identifying optimal features for cutting tool condition monitoring using recurrent neural networks

2014· article· en· W3113986652 on OpenAlexafffund
Wennian Yu, Chris K. Mechefske, Il Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mechanical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrognosticsArtificial neural networkFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Machine learningEngineeringCondition monitoringPattern recognition (psychology)Tool wearPopulationData miningMachining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identification of optimal features is necessary for the decision-making models such as the artificial neural network to achieve effective and robust on-line monitoring of cutting tool condition. Most feature selection strategies proposed in the literature are for pattern recognition or classification problems, and not suitable for prognostic problems. This paper applies three parameter suitability metrics introduced in previous similar studies for failure-time analysis and modifies them for failure-process analysis which allows for the unit-wise variation of the component in a population. The suitability of a feature used for cutting tool condition monitoring is determined by its fitness value calculated based on the three metrics. Two types of recurrent neural network are employed to analyze the prognostics ability of the features extracted from multi-sensor signals (acoustics emission, motor current, and vibration) collected from a milling machine under various operating conditions. The analysis results validate that the fitness value of a feature can depict its prognostic ability. It is found that adding more features which share abundant information does not increase the prediction performance but increases the burden on the decision-marking models. In addition, adding features with low fitness values may even deteriorate the prediction.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207