Early fault detection for rolling bearings: A meta‐learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Early fault detection (EFD) of rolling bearings aims at detecting the early symptoms of faults by monitoring small deviations of health states. Accurate EFD enables predictive maintenance and contributes to the stability of mechanical systems. In recent years, machine learning based methods have shown impressive performance on EFD. Most of the current machine learning‐based methods assume the availability for a large amount of data. However, in practice, the authors may only have a very limited amount of training data, which makes it hard to learn a reliable machine learning model. To address this concern, in this work, the authors propose to tackle EFD via meta learning. Specifically, the authors first formulate EFD as a few‐shot learning problem and then propose to tackle this problem with a metric‐based meta learning method. Furthermore, ensemble learning is further leveraged to improve the detection robustness. For the proposed method, the distribution difference from the working conditions and the bearings are considered. The experimental results on two bearing datasets show that the proposed method can achieve better EFD performance, that is, detecting incipient faults earlier while bringing in lower false alarms, compared with several frequently used EFD 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".