A comparative study of different data representations under <scp>CNN</scp> and a novel integrated <scp>FDD</scp> architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, deep‐learning‐based fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) methods have received extensive attention. As we all know, different input forms have a great impact on the final performance. In this paper, three categories and seven representation methods are discussed: numeric representations, image mapping representations (radar chart mapping and Gramian angular summation field (GASF) mapping), and signal transforming representations (fast Fourier transform (FFT) and wavelet). The tests on the Tennessee Eastman process (TEP) dataset prove that the FFT method has achieved the best performance on average. Based on this, a general FDD integration framework is proposed to integrate multiple base learners together to make decisions by weighted voting or maximum voting. Finally, the comparison between our proposed method and other five typical models (FFT, a GASF and a multi‐scale neural network (GASF–MSNN), convolutional neural network (CNN), Long Short‐Term Memory (LSTM), and Support Vector Machine (SVM)) illustrates the effectiveness of our method for FDD on the TEP. The proposed integrated method provides an effective platform for deep‐learning‐based FDD.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".