MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388340785 · doi:10.1177/1748006x231207169

A rolling bearing fault diagnosis method based on a new data fusion mechanism and improved CNN

2023· article· en· W4388340785 on OpenAlexaff
Tianzhuang Yu, Zhaohui Ren, Yongchao Zhang, Shihua Zhou, Xin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceBlock (permutation group theory)Fault (geology)Bearing (navigation)Information fusionResidualArtificial intelligenceSensor fusionPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningArtificial neural networkFeature (linguistics)FusionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of modern industry has accelerated the need for intelligent fault diagnosis. Nowadays, most bearing fault diagnosis methods only use the information of one sensor, and the diagnostic knowledge contained in single-sensor data is often insufficient, which leads to insufficient diagnostic accuracy under complex working conditions. In addition, although convolutional neural network (CNN) has been widely used in fault diagnosis, the network structures used are still relatively traditional, and the ability of feature extraction is relatively poor. To solve the problems, firstly, this paper innovatively uses coordinate attention (CA) to more fully mine fusion information after concatenate (Cat) operation and proposes a new data fusion mechanism, Cat-CA. Then an improved Residual Block is proposed, and a novel improved CNN is built by stacking this Block. Finally, the Cat-CA-ICNN is built by combining Cat-CA and improved CNN, and its effectiveness and superiority are verified using two datasets.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and ReliabilitySame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207