MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413422485 · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2025.111611

Gaussian process latent variable model and Bayesian inference for non-parametric failure modeling applied to ship engine

2025· article· en· W4413422485 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueReliability Engineering & System Safety · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMerenkulun säätiöAcademy of FinlandNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLatent variableGaussian processInferenceParametric statisticsComputer scienceBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceLatent variable modelEngineeringData miningMachine learningGaussianArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unnecessary early maintenance is especially critical for high-value or essential components whose unexpected failures could disrupt the entire operational process of the system. The uncertainties inherent in facility deterioration necessitate a robust framework that accurately assesses system health and guides optimal maintenance scheduling. To this end, this paper proposes a probabilistic machine learning framework based on a Gaussian Process Latent Variable Model (GPLVM) combined with Bayesian Inference (BI) to dynamically assess the health state of system and predict failure risk. The model integrates uncertainty quantification through BI, providing a non-parametric hazard rate estimate at each time step, which enables a precise and adaptive maintenance planning strategy. To verify the proposed model, a critical component of an engine – spark ignition, is considered as the case study. Herein, ignition voltage is monitored as the primary indicator of spark health, with degradation thresholds and safety thresholds explicitly modeled to capture degradation trends accurately. The results indicate that 96.5% of the observations fell within precise predictive range (according to Pareto Diagnostics values), underscoring the model’s promise for maintenance planning. This approach has the potential not only to improve predictive accuracy and decision confidence but can also provide a flexible, non-parametric solution adaptable to various high-stakes maintenance 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.277 · 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