Implementing Gaussian process modelling in predictive maintenance of mining machineries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining machinery constitutes essential assets for a mining corporation. Due to economies of scale, technological innovations and stringent quality and safety requirements, the size, complexity, functionality and diversity of industrial machinery have expanded markedly over the last two decades. This growth has increased sensitivity to machine availability and reliability. Mining operations install comprehensive maintenance units tasked with inspection, repair, replacement and inventory management for the machines in use. Leveraging the proliferation of sensor technologies integrated within the machines, maintenance units obtain rich data streams synchronously disclosing machine health and performance metrics, which enables a predictive maintenance programme. This programme performs prognostic detections of anomalies and permits timely intervention to avert catastrophic breakdowns. However, such sensor-driven predictive maintenance scheme for machinery in the mining sector is limited. The present paper utilises the Gaussian process, a powerful predictive modelling technique, to show its potential in addressing this challenge. The efficacy of this approach is validated through three case studies. Each case study is equipped with sensor data and represents a typical predictive maintenance task for mining assets. The developed Gaussian process models successfully capture meaningful temporal patterns in sensor data and generate credible predictions across all three tasks: temporal prediction of sensor data degradation trends, remaining useful lifespan prediction and simultaneous monitoring and prediction of multiple machine conditions. Furthermore, the models offer uncertainty estimates to the prediction outcomes, potentially facilitating maintenance decision-making process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".