MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407168489 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2025.3536625

An Adaptive Orthogonality-Constrained Robust Dictionary Learning Approach and Its Application to Bearing Fault Diagnosis

2025· article· en· W4407168489 on OpenAlexaff
Chuliang Liu, Zhonghe Huang, Xian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonalityComputer scienceBearing (navigation)Fault (geology)Fault detection and isolationArtificial intelligenceDictionary learningPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsSparse approximationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting weak fault features from vibration signals contaminated with strong noise, especially non-Gaussian noise, is a challenging task for early fault diagnosis of bearings. In this article, a novel adaptive orthogonality-constrained robust dictionary learning (AOCRDL) method for bearing fault diagnosis is developed to address this issue. First, an <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\alpha $ </tex-math></inline-formula>-divergence-based robust dictionary learning (RDL) approach was introduced to enhance the capability of sparse representation techniques in handling non-Gaussian noise. Second, orthogonalization process of atoms is embedded into the dictionary learning process to obtain an optimized dictionary for recovering impulse sequences related to faults. Third, the adaptive determination method of key parameters in the AOCRDL was developed to ensure optimal performance of the approach. Simulations and experimental results demonstrate that AOCRDL method can effectively extract early bearing fault features, especially in scenarios with strong non-Gaussian noise.

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)0.000
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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207