MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time series representation learning via cross-domain predictive and contextual contrasting: Application to fault detection

2025· article· en· W4410066943 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibrahim Yousef, Sirish L. Shah, R. Bhushan Gopaluni

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Series (stratigraphy)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceFault detection and isolationDomain (mathematical analysis)Fault (geology)Time seriesFeature learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven methods for fault detection increasingly rely on large historical datasets, yet annotations are costly and time-consuming. As a result, learning approaches that minimize the need for extensive labeling, such as self-supervised learning (SSL), are becoming more popular. Contrastive learning , a subset of SSL, has shown promise in fields like computer vision and natural language processing (NLP), yet its application in fault detection is not fully explored. In this paper, we introduce Cross-Domain Predictive and Contextual Contrasting (CDPCC), a novel contrastive learning framework that integrates temporal and spectral information to capture informative time-frequency features from time series data. CDPCC consists of two key components: cross-domain predictive contrasting, which predicts future embeddings across time and frequency domains, and cross-domain contextual contrasting, which aligns time- and frequency-based representations in a shared latent space. We evaluate CDPCC on fault detection tasks using both simulated and industrial datasets. Our results show that a linear classifier trained on features learned by CDPCC performs comparably to fully supervised models. Moreover, CDPCC proves highly effective in scenarios with limited labeled data , achieving superior performance with only 50% of the labeled data compared to fully supervised training on the entire dataset. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/iy641/CDPCC.git .

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Applications of Artificial IntelligenceSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207