MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399039132 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3406262

Unlocking Dual Utility: 1D-CNN for Milling Tool Health Assessment and Experimental Optimization

2024· article· en· W4399039132 on OpenAlexafffund
Ghazal Farhani, S. Kurukuri, Ryan Myers, Nelson Santos, Mohammed Tauhiduzzaman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsBottleneckComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Dual (grammatical number)Convolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningPrecision and recallRaw dataEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a novel application of 1D Convolutional Neural Networks (1D-CNN), this study pioneers a tri-class classification framework for accurately forecasting the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of milling tools. By harnessing the 1D-CNN’s innate capability to analyze raw time-series data, we eliminate the traditional bottleneck of extensive feature engineering. Our model undergoes rigorous validation using a leave-one-out cross-validation method, catering to the constraints of a limited dataset. When optimized, the model delivers compelling performance metrics: average accuracy, precision, and recall scores stand at 0.90 ± 0.02, 0.85 ± 0.12, and 0.87 ± 0.08, respectively. What sets this work apart is its dual utility: not only does it excel in tool health assessment, but its output also serves as a diagnostic tool for experimental setups. For instance, anomalies detected in the model’s predictions can act as early warnings for potential sensor malfunctions. Additionally, the model’s performance metrics offer invaluable guidance in optimizing experimental parameters, such as choosing the most efficient sampling rate. In summary, this study not only establishes the robustness of 1D-CNNs in assessing milling tool health but also unveils their untapped potential as diagnostic aids for fine-tuning experimental setups.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207