MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405410066 · doi:10.37385/jaets.v6i1.5891

Life Time Prediction of an Electromagnet Relay using Clustering based Principal Component Analysis with Hybrid Deep Learning Model

2024· article· en· W4405410066 on OpenAlexaff
C. Reeda Lenus, S. Sridharan, A. Malligarjun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Engineering and Technological Science (JAETS) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisCluster analysisElectromagnetRelayArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComponent (thermodynamics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsMagnet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of the electromagnet relay remaining useful life is highly crucial to maintain reliability and avoid unscheduled breakdowns in various applications. The objective of this research work will be to design a model with much higher precision and efficiency utilizing PCA coupled with a hybrid deep learning architecture of Bi-LSTM along with Bi-GRU. The C-MAPSS dataset was of reduced dimensionality, since PCA has been applied to eliminate data redundancy while retaining crucial characteristics, and then K-means clustering is applied to classify the data; afterwards, the Bi-LSTM and Bi-GRU models are implemented for RUL relay prediction. The proposed method in comparison with typical deep learning models has a Mean Absolute Error of 0.021 and an R² of 0.996. Results developed reflect how the model can produce some very powerful prediction, however; what it really shows is great potential for this approach with respect to predictive maintenance of electromagnet relays. PCA may well amalgamate with Bi-LSTM and Bi-GRU models to achieve great scalability according to the maintenance engineering, which offers practical applications in improving the lifetime of the electromagnet relays.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Engineering and Technological Science (JAETS)Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207