A Framework to Rank Prognostics Health Indicators with Application to Brake Rotors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a framework to assess the effectiveness of various health indicators (HIs) used to monitor the state of health (SOH) of a brake rotor health monitoring system. The following criteria were used to rank various health indicators: (i) Identifiability: Correlation of the HI with the Ground Truth (GT); (ii) Compactness: Mean of the standard deviation of the estimated SOHs; (iii) Robustness to Noise Factors: An HI is considered robust when it meets all functional and customer requirements under all operating conditions and its performance is not affected by the variations in the environment, operating conditions or other factors impacting the performance in an undesired way (noise factors); (iv) Monotonicity: To quantify the monotonic trend in HIs as the fault level increases from healthy baseline to the most severe faults. Monotone HIs are preferred as they will likely generalize better to data not used in development; and (v) Estimation Error: The average relative error between the GT and the prediction obtained from the regression analysis. Results showed that this framework can be applied to several HIs derived from performing time and frequency analysis on various sensor signals used to monitor the health of brake rotors. Top HIs selected based on this framework provided the best performance in detecting degraded brake rotors as evidenced by higher classification score.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".