MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Fault Prediction in Energy Systems: Telemetric Data and Machine Learning Approaches

2025· article· en· W4413178447 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Hüseyin Yurdagül, Umut Zaim, Adem Seller, Hatice Özdemir, Gözde Uyğur, Mehmet Fatih Akay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Fault (geology)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uninterrupted and reliable provision of energy is of paramount importance for the sustainability of economic activities and the welfare of society. The intricate structures formed by numerous components within the energy infrastructure create a basis for failures to yield severe consequences. This study aims to develop predictive maintenance models using machine learning algorithms by examining telemetry data, such as voltage, rotational speed, pressure, and vibration obtained from machinery, in conjunction with historical failure and maintenance records. The dataset utilized in this study comprises hourly telemetry information, including voltage, revolutions per minute, pressure, and vibration, collected from 100 distinct machines throughout the year 2015. Furthermore, supplementary information, such as the machines past failure occurrences, maintenance logs, and technical specifications, has been considered in the development of the models. In this study, timedependent patterns derived from sensor data, along with historical maintenance and failure information, have been integrated and analyzed using machine learning algorithms, namely Stochastic Gradient Descent Classifier (SGDClassifier), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Histogram-based Gradient Boosting (HGBClassifier). The results have been analyzed based on performance metrics such as Precision, Recall and F1-Score. Notably, the XGBoost and HGBClassifier algorithms demonstrated superior performance in early failure detection, particularly within 24-and 48 -hour prediction windows, achieving high F1-Score values. Consequently, this approach aims to transcend the traditional reactive maintenance paradigm, thereby enhancing operational efficiency and preventing unforeseen downtimes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control Systems→French-language works237,207→