Development of a Machine Learning Based Fault Detection Model for Received Signal Level in Telecommunication Enterprise Infrastructure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research develops a machine-learning fault detection model for received signal levels in telecommunication infrastructure. The methodology involves modeling an enterprise point-to-multipoint wireless network using pathloss 5.0 software. Data from the simulated network, including free space pathloss, transmit power output, transmit antenna gain, transmitter loss, miscellaneous loss, and receiver loss, is used to train three regression models: gradient boosting regression (GBR), random forest regression (RFR), and KNearest Neighbor (KNN). The algorithm compares the received signal levels (RSL) of new data with a threshold value, triggering a "Fault" or "No-fault" condition. A "Fault" indicates a deviation in the RSL, prompting maintenance by the field support team. A "No-fault" means the RSL is within the accepted range, requiring no maintenance. Performance evaluation metrics such as mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE), R-squared, and root mean square error (RMSE) were compared to select the optimal model. Experimental results show that the RFR model outperforms GBR and KNN with MAE: 0.007101, MSE: 0.000610, R-squared: 0.999992, and RMSE: 0.024697. Leveraging these machine learning-based fault detection models enables telecom service providers to optimize network performance, reduce downtime, and increase customer satisfaction.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it