MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394854834 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ad3be1

Bearing fault diagnosis method based on angular domain resampling, relative position matrix and transfer learning

2024· article· en· W4394854834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xun Zhang, Guanghua Xu, Xiaobi Chen, Ruiquan Chen, Jieren Xie, Peiyuan Tian, Sicong Zhang, Qingqiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBearing (navigation)Fault (geology)Computer scienceVibrationArtificial intelligenceSIGNAL (programming language)Position (finance)ResamplingPattern recognition (psychology)Time domainTransfer of learningComputer visionData miningAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bearings are key components in mechanical equipment, which are widely used in various fields such as automobiles and airplanes. Aiming at the analysis of vibration signal processing under the variable speed condition of bearings, this paper proposes a new bearing fault diagnosis method, which firstly resamples the vibration signals in the angular domain, and then converts the resampled signals into images by the relative position matrix method, and finally uses the transfer learning to automatically extract the features and classify them. To verify the effectiveness of the method, it is tested on the Case Western Reserve University bearing fault dataset and University of Ottawa bearing fault dataset respectively. Compared with other time series to image methods (Recurrence Plot, etc) and other pre-trained models (GoogLeNet, etc), the proposed method has some advantages in terms of accuracy, image generation time, training time, and testing time. The accuracy of the proposed method in this paper reaches more than 90%, which suggests its potential effectiveness in the classification of bearing faults under variable speed working conditions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207