Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction 2. Preliminaries and 2.1. Blind deconvolution 2.2. Quadratic neural networks 3. Methodology 3.1. Time domain quadratic convolutional filter 3.2. Superiority of cyclic features extraction by QCNN 3.3. Frequency domain linear filter with envelope spectrum objective function 3.4. Integral optimization with uncertainty-aware weighing scheme 4. Computational experiments 4.1. Experimental configurations 4.2. Case study 1: PU dataset 4.3. Case study 2: JNU dataset 4.4. Case study 3: HIT dataset 5. Computational experiments 5.1. Comparison of BD methods 5.2. Classification results on various noise conditions 5.3. Employing ClassBD to deep learning classifiers 5.4. Employing ClassBD to machine learning classifiers 5.5. Feature extraction ability of quadratic and conventional networks 5.6. Comparison of ClassBD filters 6. Conclusions Appendix and References 3.4. Integral optimization with uncertainty-aware weighing scheme The fault-diagnosing task typically necessitates a deep learning classifier. Our module exhibits greater flexibility compared to other denoising models as it can be readily transferred to any 1D classifier, such as Transformer and CNN. Upon the addition of the classifier, the loss function evolves into a joint loss: with 𝑝, 𝑞 being the true label and predicted label, respectively. Our framework seamlessly integrates the objective functions of BD and downstream classifier, thereby incorporating the classification labels as prior information into the BD optimization. Compared to other forms of prior knowledge, such as cyclic frequency [23], classification labels are more readily obtainable without additional estimation, making them more suitable to guide BD in benefiting the downstream tasks. In this context, optimizing ClassBD is framed as a multi-task learning problem [68]. In the context of multi-task learning, a key challenge lies in balancing different loss components. To address this problem, we employ the socalled uncertainty-aware weighing loss to automatically balance the importance of each loss component to the learning problem [69]. Assume that all the tasks have task-dependent or homoscedastic uncertainty, the loss functions for all tasks are subject to Gaussian noise, then the likelihood function can be defined as: Consequently, the joint loss is formulated as: Authors:
(1) Jing-Xiao Liao, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China and School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China;
(2) Chao He, School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China;
(3) Jipu Li, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China;
(4) Jinwei Sun, School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China;
(5) Shiping Zhang (Corresponding author), School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China;
(6) Xiaoge Zhang (Corresponding author), Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China. This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2. Preliminaries and 2.1. Blind deconvolution 2. Preliminaries and 2.1. Blind deconvolution 2.2. Quadratic neural networks 2.2. Quadratic neural networks 3. Methodology 3. Methodology 3.1. Time domain quadratic convolutional filter 3.1. Time domain quadratic convolutional filter 3.2. Superiority of cyclic features extraction by QCNN 3.2. Superiority of cyclic features extraction by QCNN 3.3. Frequency domain linear filter with envelope spectrum objective function 3.3. Frequency domain linear filter with envelope spectrum objective function 3.4. Integral optimization with uncertainty-aware weighing scheme 3.4. Integral optimization with uncertainty-aware weighing scheme 4. Computational experiments 4.1. Experimental configurations 4.1. Experimental configurations 4.2. Case study 1: PU dataset 4.2. Case study 1: PU dataset 4.3. Case study 2: JNU dataset 4.3. Case study 2: JNU dataset 4.4. Case study 3: HIT dataset 4.4. Case study 3: HIT dataset 5. Computational experiments 5.1. Comparison of BD methods 5.1. Comparison of BD methods 5.2. Classification results on various noise conditions 5.2. Classification results on various noise conditions 5.3. Employing ClassBD to deep learning classifiers 5.3. Employing ClassBD to deep learning classifiers 5.4. Employing ClassBD to machine learning classifiers 5.4. Employing ClassBD to machine learning classifiers 5.5. Feature extraction ability of quadratic and conventional networks 5.5. Feature extraction ability of quadratic and conventional networks 5.6. Comparison of ClassBD filters 5.6. Comparison of ClassBD filters 6. Conclusions 6. Conclusions Appendix and References Appendix and References 3.4. Integral optimization with uncertainty-aware weighing scheme The fault-diagnosing task typically necessitates a deep learning classifier. Our module exhibits greater flexibility compared to other denoising models as it can be readily transferred to any 1D classifier, such as Transformer and CNN. Upon the addition of the classifier, the loss function evolves into a joint loss: with 𝑝, 𝑞 being the true label and predicted label, respectively. Our framework seamlessly integrates the objective functions of BD and downstream classifier, thereby incorporating the classification labels as prior information into the BD optimization. Compared to other forms of prior knowledge, such as cyclic frequency [23], classification labels are more readily obtainable without additional estimation, making them more suitable to guide BD in benefiting the downstream tasks. In this context, optimizing ClassBD is framed as a multi-task learning problem [68]. In the context of multi-task learning, a key challenge lies in balancing different loss components. To address this problem, we employ the socalled uncertainty-aware weighing loss to automatically balance the importance of each loss component to the learning problem [69]. Assume that all the tasks have task-dependent or homoscedastic uncertainty, the loss functions for all tasks are subject to Gaussian noise, then the likelihood function can be defined as: Consequently, the joint loss is formulated as: Authors: (1) Jing-Xiao Liao, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China and School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (2) Chao He, School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China; (3) Jipu Li, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China; (4) Jinwei Sun, School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (5) Shiping Zhang (Corresponding author), School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (6) Xiaoge Zhang (Corresponding author), Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China. Authors: Authors: (1) Jing-Xiao Liao, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China and School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (2) Chao He, School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China; (3) Jipu Li, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China; (4) Jinwei Sun, School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (5) Shiping Zhang (Corresponding author), School of Instrumentation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; (6) Xiaoge Zhang (Corresponding author), Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China. This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC by 4.0 Deed (Attribution 4.0 International) license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

New AI System Enhances Fault Detection with Smarter Optimization Techniques

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

AI and Signal Processing Unite to Diagnose Machine Faults Faster

AI and Signal Processing Unite to Diagnose Machine Faults Faster

Researchers Develop Advanced Methods for Fault Diagnosis Using Blind Deconvolution

Study Shows Advances in High-Order Neural Networks for Industrial Applications

Researchers Propose Novel Framework Combining Time and Frequency Domain Filters

Quadratic Neural Networks Show Promise in Handling Noise and Data Imbalances

AI and Signal Processing Unite to Diagnose Machine Faults Faster

AI and Signal Processing Unite to Diagnose Machine Faults Faster

Researchers Develop Advanced Methods for Fault Diagnosis Using Blind Deconvolution

Study Shows Advances in High-Order Neural Networks for Industrial Applications

Researchers Propose Novel Framework Combining Time and Frequency Domain Filters

Quadratic Neural Networks Show Promise in Handling Noise and Data Imbalances

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps