MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298009683 · doi:10.18280/ts.390414

Signal Processing Algorithms Like Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition and Statistical Analysis-Based Tool Chatter Severity Prediction

2022· article· en· W4298009683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yogesh Shrivastava, Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Durgesh Nandan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformPreprocessorMode (computer interface)Computer scienceFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmMachiningTime domainSignal processingFrequency domainPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of faults in machinery is a very emerging trend. In the last few decades, regenerative tool chatter and its adverse effects have been explored by many researchers. However, a lot of work has to be done within this domain. A new methodology has been presented in the present work to determine the chatter severity while machining. The methodology has three stages. In the first stage, numerous experiments have been carried out, and associated signals have been captured. Thereafter, in the second stage, preprocessing of the recorded signals have been done using “ensemble empirical mode decomposition” to filter out the contaminations from the signals. The intrinsic mode functions have been further evaluated using statistical indicators viz. chatter index and absolute mean amplitude. In the third stage, these statistical indicators have been examined concerning the input parameters to identify the variation in the responses and chatter severity. The proposed methodology seems helpful for the researchers to identify the chatter features concerning variation in input parameters.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207