MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362653123 · doi:10.1109/tim.2023.3262252

Online Fault Diagnosis and Tolerance Based on Multiexpert Joint Belief Rule Base for Sensor Failures of Vehicles

2023· article· en· W4362653123 on OpenAlexaff
Zhichao Feng, Ruohan Yang, Zhijie Zhou, Hongtian Chen, Changhua Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersShaanxi Science and Technology AssociationNatural Science Foundation of Shaanxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsJoint (building)Fault toleranceBase (topology)Computer scienceReliability engineeringFault (geology)EngineeringStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As sensors readings are used for vehicle flight control, their reliability directly affects the flight performance. This paper develops a new fault diagnosis and tolerance method for sensor failures of vehicles by addressing three problems:unavailable faulty data, difficulty in establishing analytical system, and inconsistence of expert cognitive ability. For the purpose, a new belief rule base model with multi-expert joint (BRB-ME) is proposed. The first two problems are handled by combining the small size of observation data and the uncertain knowledge from multiple experts in BRB-ME. For the third problem, a new multi-expert joint strategy is proposed in the BRB-ME model. The experts first construct their own models, and then the models are fused with different weights according to the experts’ ability, such as research fields, the working time and etc. Then, a new fault diagnosis and tolerance framework is developed based on BRB-ME for detecting vehicles’ sensor failures, where the sensor failures are tolerated by the reconstruction strategy for faulty sensor output. Moreover, in order to address the influence of the uncertain expert knowledge, an optimization model is constructed for obtaining the optimal solutions for the framework. An experimental illustration is conducted for accelerometer failure. The diagnosis accuracy is 97.50%, and the developed framework can ensure the navigation accuracy of the vehicle under accelerometer failure.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207