In aviation, "breaking things" is not an option. In aviation, "breaking things" is not an option. If a server crashes, you restart it. If a jet engine fails mid-flight, the consequences are catastrophic. This is why the aviation industry is shifting from Preventive Maintenance (replacing parts on a schedule whether they need it or not) to Predictive Maintenance (PdM) (replacing parts exactly before they break). Preventive Maintenance Predictive Maintenance (PdM) For Data Scientists, this is the ultimate Time Series regression problem. The goal is to calculate the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of an engine based on sensor data (temperature, pressure, vibration). Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Traditionally, this required complex physics models or manually tuned Deep Learning architectures (LSTMs). But recently, Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) has matured to the point where it can outperform manual tuning. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) In this guide, based on analysis using the NASA C-MAPSS dataset, we will build a pipeline to predict engine failure using two open-source heavyweights: AWS AutoGluon and H2O.ai. NASA C-MAPSS dataset AWS AutoGluon H2O.ai The PdM Pipeline We aren't just classifying images here; we are dealing with multivariate time-series data. The pipeline requires transforming raw sensor logs into a regression target (RUL). Phase 1: The Data (NASA C-MAPSS) We are using the famous NASA Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation (C-MAPSS) dataset. It contains run-to-failure simulated data. NASA Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation (C-MAPSS) Input: 21 Sensors (Total Temperature, Pressure at Fan Inlet, Core Speed, etc.).
Target: Remaining Useful Life (RUL). Input: 21 Sensors (Total Temperature, Pressure at Fan Inlet, Core Speed, etc.). Input: Target: Remaining Useful Life (RUL). Target: Calculating the RUL The dataset doesn't explicitly give us the RUL; it gives us the current cycle. We have to calculate the target. current The Logic: RUL = Max_Cycle_of_Engine - Current_Cycle The Logic: import pandas as pd

# Load dataset (Simulated example structure)
# Columns: ['unit_number', 'time_in_cycles', 'sensor_1', ... 'sensor_21']
df = pd.read_csv('train_FD001.txt', sep=" ", header=None)

# 1. Calculate the maximum life of each engine unit
max_life = df.groupby('unit_number')['time_in_cycles'].max().reset_index()
max_life.columns = ['unit_number', 'max_life']

# 2. Merge back to original dataframe
df = df.merge(max_life, on='unit_number', how='left')

# 3. Calculate RUL (The Target Variable)
df['RUL'] = df['max_life'] - df['time_in_cycles']

# Drop columns we don't need for training (like max_life)
df = df.drop(columns=['max_life'])

print(df[['unit_number', 'time_in_cycles', 'RUL']].head()) import pandas as pd

# Load dataset (Simulated example structure)
# Columns: ['unit_number', 'time_in_cycles', 'sensor_1', ... 'sensor_21']
df = pd.read_csv('train_FD001.txt', sep=" ", header=None)

# 1. Calculate the maximum life of each engine unit
max_life = df.groupby('unit_number')['time_in_cycles'].max().reset_index()
max_life.columns = ['unit_number', 'max_life']

# 2. Merge back to original dataframe
df = df.merge(max_life, on='unit_number', how='left')

# 3. Calculate RUL (The Target Variable)
df['RUL'] = df['max_life'] - df['time_in_cycles']

# Drop columns we don't need for training (like max_life)
df = df.drop(columns=['max_life'])

print(df[['unit_number', 'time_in_cycles', 'RUL']].head()) Phase 2: The Metric (Why Accuracy is Wrong) In predictive maintenance, simple "Accuracy" doesn't work. We need to measure how far off our prediction is. far off We rely on RMSE (Root Mean Square Error). RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) If the engine has 50 days left, and we predict 45, the error is 5.
If we predict 100, the error is 50 (Huge penalty). If the engine has 50 days left, and we predict 45, the error is 5. If we predict 100, the error is 50 (Huge penalty). import numpy as np

def calculate_rmse(y_true, y_pred):
    """
    y_true: The actual Remaining Useful Life
    y_pred: The model's prediction
    """
    mse = np.mean((y_true - y_pred)**2)
    return np.sqrt(mse) import numpy as np

def calculate_rmse(y_true, y_pred):
    """
    y_true: The actual Remaining Useful Life
    y_pred: The model's prediction
    """
    mse = np.mean((y_true - y_pred)**2)
    return np.sqrt(mse) Note: The analysis also highlights RMSLE (Logarithmic Error). This is crucial because under-predicting life (predicting fail earlier) is safe, but over-predicting (predicting fail later than reality) is dangerous. RMSLE handles relative errors better across different scales. Note: RMSLE (Logarithmic Error) Phase 3: The AutoML Showdown We tested two frameworks to see which could handle the complex, noisy sensor data better without extensive manual tuning. Contender 1: AutoGluon (The Winner) AutoGluon (developed by AWS) uses a strategy of stacking and ensembling multiple models (Neural Nets, LightGBM, CatBoost) automatically. The Code: The Code: from autogluon.tabular import TabularPredictor

# AutoGluon handles feature engineering automatically
# 'RUL' is our target label calculated in Phase 1
predictor = TabularPredictor(label='RUL', eval_metric='root_mean_squared_error').fit(
    train_data=df_train,
    time_limit=600, # Train for 10 minutes
    presets='best_quality'
)

# Inference
y_pred = predictor.predict(df_test)
results = predictor.evaluate(df_test)
print(f"AutoGluon RMSE: {results['root_mean_squared_error']}") from autogluon.tabular import TabularPredictor

# AutoGluon handles feature engineering automatically
# 'RUL' is our target label calculated in Phase 1
predictor = TabularPredictor(label='RUL', eval_metric='root_mean_squared_error').fit(
    train_data=df_train,
    time_limit=600, # Train for 10 minutes
    presets='best_quality'
)

# Inference
y_pred = predictor.predict(df_test)
results = predictor.evaluate(df_test)
print(f"AutoGluon RMSE: {results['root_mean_squared_error']}") Contender 2: H2O AutoML H2O is a veteran in the space, known for its scalable distributed computing capabilities. The Code: The Code: import h2o
from h2o.automl import H2OAutoML

h2o.init()

# Convert pandas df to H2O Frame
hf_train = h2o.H2OFrame(df_train)
hf_test = h2o.H2OFrame(df_test)

# Train
aml = H2OAutoML(max_models=20, seed=1)
aml.train(y='RUL', training_frame=hf_train)

# Inference
preds = aml.predict(hf_test)
perf = aml.leader.model_performance(hf_test)
print(f"H2O RMSE: {perf.rmse()}") import h2o
from h2o.automl import H2OAutoML

h2o.init()

# Convert pandas df to H2O Frame
hf_train = h2o.H2OFrame(df_train)
hf_test = h2o.H2OFrame(df_test)

# Train
aml = H2OAutoML(max_models=20, seed=1)
aml.train(y='RUL', training_frame=hf_train)

# Inference
preds = aml.predict(hf_test)
perf = aml.leader.model_performance(hf_test)
print(f"H2O RMSE: {perf.rmse()}") Phase 4: The Results The analysis revealed a massive disparity in performance when applied to this specific sensor dataset. Library

Metric

Target: RUL

Result (Lower is Better)



AutoGluon

RMSE

RUL

14.07



H2O

RMSE

RUL

44.85 Library

Metric

Target: RUL

Result (Lower is Better)



AutoGluon

RMSE

RUL

14.07



H2O

RMSE

RUL

44.85 Library

Metric

Target: RUL

Result (Lower is Better) Library Library Library Metric Metric Metric Target: RUL Target: RUL Target: RUL Result (Lower is Better) Result (Lower is Better) Result (Lower is Better) AutoGluon

RMSE

RUL

14.07 AutoGluon AutoGluon AutoGluon RMSE RMSE RUL RUL 14.07 14.07 14.07 H2O

RMSE

RUL

44.85 H2O H2O H2O RMSE RMSE RUL RUL 44.85 44.85 **Analysis: \ AutoGluon outperformed H2O significantly (14.07 vs 44.85). In the context of jet engines, an error margin of 14 cycles is acceptable for scheduling maintenance. An error margin of 44 cycles renders the model useless. 14 cycles 44 cycles Why did AutoGluon win? Why did AutoGluon win? Stacking: AutoGluon excels at multi-layer stacking, combining the strengths of tree-based models and neural networks.
Feature Handling: It handled the raw sensor noise better without requiring manual denoising steps. Stacking: AutoGluon excels at multi-layer stacking, combining the strengths of tree-based models and neural networks. Stacking: Feature Handling: It handled the raw sensor noise better without requiring manual denoising steps. Feature Handling: Conclusion: Stop Tuning, Start Stacking For industrial applications involving complex multivariate data, AutoML is no longer just a prototyping tool—it is a production capability. AutoML is no longer just a prototyping tool—it is a production capability. By switching from manual model selection to an automated ensemble approach like AutoGluon, developers can reduce the engineering time from weeks to hours while achieving superior accuracy. Key Takeaway for Developers: When building Industrial IoT apps, focus your effort on Phase 1 (Data Engineering) cleaning the sensor logs and calculating the correct RUL. Let the AutoML handle the model selection. Phase 1 (Data Engineering)

This story contains AI-generated text. The author has used AI either for research, to generate outlines, or write the text itself. 

Walkthroughs, tutorials, guides, and tips. This story will teach you how to do something new or how to do something better.

Predicting Jet Engine Failure with Python and AutoML

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Hybrid Approach to Painless Java Upgrades using LLMs

A brief overview of Automatic Machine Learning solutions (AutoML)

On AutoML

Query a custom AutoML model with Cloud Functions and Firebase

What Does the Future of Machine Learning Look Like?

How the F*ck Do You Get Started with AI—A Lesson From the Fight Club

A Hybrid Approach to Painless Java Upgrades using LLMs

A brief overview of Automatic Machine Learning solutions (AutoML)

On AutoML

Query a custom AutoML model with Cloud Functions and Firebase

What Does the Future of Machine Learning Look Like?

How the F*ck Do You Get Started with AI—A Lesson From the Fight Club

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps