MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403917738 · doi:10.1109/ojim.2024.3487237

Fault Detection in an Electro-Hydrostatic Actuator Using Polyscale Complexity Measures and Bayesian Classification

2024· article· en· W4403917738 on OpenAlexafffund
Soleiman Hosseinpour, Witold Kinsner, Saman Muthukumarana, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Instrumentation and Measurement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFault detection and isolationActuatorBayesian probabilityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHydrostatic equilibriumFault (geology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningReliability engineeringEngineeringGeologyPhysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a novel approach for fault detection in a hydraulic actuation system. The fault of interest is the internal leakage of the actuator, which may often be caused by the wearing down of the piston seal. Bayesian classification and polyscale complexity measures are used in this article. Bayesian inference provides a probabilistic framework for classification that combines prior knowledge with observed data to update the probability distribution of the classification parameters. It results in a posterior distribution that reflects the updated knowledge. This allows for more accurate and reliable fault detection, especially in cases where the available data are uncertain or noisy. In order to extract features from the acquired signals, a polyscale measure known as variance fractal dimension (VFD) is employed. VFD measures are employed as features for Bayesian classification, allowing for distinguishing faulty conditions. The efficacy of the proposed method is demonstrated using experimental data, achieving an accuracy of 93.75%. Consequently, the proposed method is considered to be promising for fault detection in fluid power applications.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 Open Journal of Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207