Fault diagnosis method for unbalance data based on Gramian angular field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The commonplace practice in deep learning is to make use of a balanced dataset, whereby the number of fault data is equivalent to that of normal data. However, in the context of real-world applications, the number of fault data is generally insufficient compared to that of normal data. In this study, a new approach for diagnosing faults in unbalanced data sets is proposed using the Gramian Angular Field(GAF) method. Firstly, the Gramian Angular Field (GAF) method is employed to convert one-dimensional data into two-dimensional data, which enhances the feature extraction process. Secondly, to balance the sample distribution, fault data is generated using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs).Finally, the residual neural network (ResNet) with an attention mechanism is utilized to improve the accuracy of fault diagnosis. The proposed method was experimentally validated using open-source bearing datasets that were published by Case Western Reserve University and the University of Ottawa. The experimental results show that the proposed method has greatly improved fault diagnosis performance in cases of data distribution imbalance, surpassing that of the compared methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".