Advanced Industrial Fault Detection: A Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic Signal Processing and Ensemble Machine Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern condition monitoring and industrial fault prediction have advanced to include intelligent techniques, aiming to improve reliability, productivity, and safety. The integration of ultrasonic signal processing with various machine learning (ML) models can significantly enhance the efficiency of industrial fault diagnosis. In this paper, ultrasonic data are analyzed and applied to ensemble ML algorithms. Four methods for reducing dimensionality are employed to illustrate differences among acoustic faults. Different features in the time domain are extracted, and predictive ensemble models including a gradient boosting classifier (GB), stacking classifier (Stacking), voting classifier (Voting), Adaboost, Logit boost (Logit), and bagging classifier (Bagging) are implemented. To assess the model’s performance on new data during experiments, k-fold cross-validation (CV) was employed. Based on the designed workflow, GB demonstrated the highest performance, with less variation over 5 cross-folds. Finally, the real-time capability of the model was evaluated by deployment on an ARM Cortex-M4F microcontroller (MCU).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".