MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416582580 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2025.3633724

Gear Tooth Crack Detection Method Using Bayesian Neural Network

2025· article· W4416582580 on OpenAlexaff
Weibing Lu, Zhipeng Wang, Liang Zhao, Yuanjin Ji, Yuejian Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFault detection and isolationBayesian probabilityArtificial neural networkGeneralizationFault (geology)Noise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Regularization (linguistics)Data modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gearbox fault detection plays a crucial role in implementing proactive maintenance strategies and reducing economic losses. Fault detection can be addressed by modeling baseline monitoring data and subsequently detecting faults through deviations between the baseline model and newly acquired monitoring data. In the field of deep learning, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) have been widely applied to nonlinear time series modeling. This paper attempts to combine Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN) with LSTM, aiming to fully exploit the ability of LSTM to capture complex long-term dependencies as well as the strong regularization and generalization capabilities of BNN. Specifically, we propose two fault detection methods: the fault detection method based on Bayesian LSTM (BLSTM) and the fault detection method based on traditional LSTM combined with Bayesian fully connected layer (LSTM-BFC). Comparative and anti-noise experiments were conducted using data collected from a gearbox test rig. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed Bayesian Neural Network-based approaches outperform traditional LSTM models in terms of fault detection performance. Among them, the LSTM-BFC method shows particularly outstanding performance in training time, time series prediction capability, fault detection accuracy, and noise robustness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

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 venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207