Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Predictive Maintenance Optimization for Smart Vending Machines Using IoT and Machine Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims an IoT-plus-ML pipeline can forecast vending machine failures before they happen, reporting 94.2 percent fault-classification accuracy and a 32 percent simulated cut in downtime.

desk verdict Routine ML pipeline on synthetic vending-machine data; the architecture is useful but the reported KPIs are unsupported by any reproducible simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02934 v1 pith:A5UZWKDZ submitted 2025-06-26 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

Md. Nisharul Hasan (Department of Industrial Engineering , Lamar University , Beaumont , Texas , USA) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords predictivemaintenancevendingmachinesInternetofThingsmachinelearningfaultdetectionRandomForestLSTMconditionmonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that a vending machine fitted with low-cost sensors—temperature, vibration, current draw, and interaction counts—can predict its own failures by running a supervised classifier on the sensor stream. On simulated data, it reports that a Random Forest model reaches 94.2 percent classification accuracy, with a true-positive rate of 0.956 and a false-positive rate below 0.08. Over a simulated six-month deployment across 20 machines, it claims a 32 percent reduction in unplanned downtime and a 27 percent decrease in unnecessary technician dispatches, with mean time between failures rising from 21.3 to 28.4 days. If these numbers transfer to real machines, maintenance could move from periodic or reactive visits to alerts that arrive before breakdown, at a retrofit cost the paper places under $50 per unit. The main open question is whether the synthetic fault data matches real field behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the sensor-to-classifier pipeline: temperature (DS18B20), vibration (SW-420 or ADXL345), current (ACS712), and Hall-effect interaction sensors feed an STM32 microcontroller that pushes MQTT messages to a cloud database every 10 seconds. Preprocessing applies a low-pass filter, linear interpolation for missing values, z-score outlier removal, and feature engineering (temperature rise rate, vibration spectrum, moving averages); the resulting feature vectors are classified by Random Forest or LSTM into normal versus fault. The claimed operational gains are the direct consequence of the classifier's operating point—true-positive rate 0.956 and false-positive rate below 0.08—combined with the exponential failure-probability model $P_f(t) = 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$, which defines the intervention window. The same framework also outputs severity-prioritized alerts and, as an auxiliary feature, inventory-depletion estimates from usage frequency.

What would settle it

Run the proposed sensor layer on 20 real machines for six months, collect technician-confirmed fault labels, and compare the observed true-positive and false-positive rates against the claimed 0.956 and below 0.08; if the realized no-fault-found rate or unplanned downtimes do not approach the simulated 27 percent and 32 percent reductions, the central claim fails. A cheaper check is to fit $P_f(t) = 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$ to real pre-failure temperature and vibration traces and see whether the exponential shape actually holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a modular IoT sensing layer plus binary classification is enough to turn vending machine servicing into predictive maintenance. The described pipeline has sensors sampling every 10 seconds, preprocessing that cleans and engineers features, and Random Forest (100 trees, Gini criterion) or LSTM (50 epochs, 10-frame windows) labeling each window as normal or fault. The paper reports Random Forest at 94.2 percent accuracy, precision 91.3 percent, recall 95.6 percent, and F1 93.4 percent, slightly ahead of LSTM's 92.6 percent. The predicted failure probability is modeled as $P_f(t) = 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$, an exponential rise over operating time. In a benchmark against time-based preventive maintenance, the simulated 20-machine, six-month deployment yields a 32 percent drop in unplanned downtime, a 27 percent drop in no-fault-found visits, MTBF improving from 21.3 to 28.4 days, MTTR falling from 2.4 to 1.6 hours, and customer satisfaction rising 19 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy and savings rest on the assumption that the synthetic sensor data with injected faults behaves like real vending machine failure data; if real field conditions differ, the numbers will not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators could shift from fixed-schedule visits to condition-triggered alerts, with each alert carrying a fault type, confidence score, and priority level.
  • At the reported operating point, fewer than 8 percent of healthy machine windows would trigger an alert, leaving a bounded but nonzero false-alarm load.
  • With MTBF up from 21.3 to 28.4 days and MTTR down from 2.4 to 1.6 hours, a fleet following the system would need fewer emergency callouts and could concentrate service during planned windows.
  • At under $50 per unit using commodity sensors and open-source software, the retrofit is cheap enough to deploy across a heterogeneous fleet rather than only premium machines.
  • The same architecture's inventory tracking means a single cloud dashboard could handle both refill scheduling and fault alerts, reducing separate logistics systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The single make-or-break test the paper does not run is a real pilot: retraining the classifiers on labeled logs from physical machines would directly reveal whether the synthetic fault injections and the exponential failure model match field degradation.
  • The exponential model $P_f(t) = 1 - e^{-\lambda t}$ implies a per-machine alert threshold that trades downtime against dispatch cost; the paper reports one operating point but leaves the threshold-optimization problem implicit.
  • Because the architecture uploads every 10 seconds over Wi-Fi and runs the classifier centrally, a natural scaling variant is to move inference to the STM32 or Raspberry Pi edge; the paper lists edge computing as future work without quantifying the latency or power savings.
  • The auxiliary inventory module invites a combined routing problem in which refill and maintenance visits are scheduled together, a logistical extension the paper mentions but does not model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an IoT-based predictive maintenance framework for vending machines, using temperature, vibration, current, and usage sensors feeding Random Forest and LSTM classifiers to detect faults. The authors report high classification accuracy (Random Forest 94.2%) on a synthetic dataset, introduce a failure probability curve P_f(t)=1-e^{-λ t}, and claim operational improvements from a simulated six-month deployment over 20 machines, including a 32% reduction in unplanned downtime and a 27% decrease in unnecessary dispatches. The conclusion recommends real-world pilot testing as future work.

Significance. If the reported operational improvements were reproducible and validated on real vending machine data, the framework could offer a low-cost ($50/unit) retrofit path for small, distributed retail assets, a domain that is less covered than heavy industrial predictive maintenance. The paper makes a sensible architectural proposal and includes a straightforward comparison of two standard classifiers. However, the paper's central evidence base is entirely synthetic, the simulation and data generation procedures are not described in sufficient detail for replication, and the headline KPI improvements are not derivable from the classifier metrics reported. The contribution is therefore currently an unvalidated concept rather than a demonstrated system; the significance is conditional on substantial additional evidence that is not present in this manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Table 4] The claimed operational improvements (32% downtime reduction, 27% dispatch reduction, MTBF/MTTR changes, NPS increase) are not derivable from the reported classifier metrics. The paper gives TPR=0.956 and FPR<0.08, but converting these into dispatch and downtime reductions requires a maintenance simulation model that specifies the fault arrival process, alert thresholds, dispatch decision rules, service times, and cost functions. None of these are provided, no simulation code is given, and no baseline simulation is described. As written, the KPI numbers are unsupported assertions. This is load-bearing because the conclusion and abstract emphasize these operational gains.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (1) and Figure 2] The failure probability function P_f(t)=1-e^{-λ t} is introduced as 'modeled over time using the LSTM network,' but λ is described only as a 'learned failure rate parameter.' No fitting procedure, λ value, uncertainty, or goodness-of-fit evaluation is reported, and Figure 2 is explicitly described as a 'simulated failure prediction curve.' Thus the curve is a fitted exponential on simulated data, not a predictive output of the model. This circularity prevents the curve from serving as evidence that the system can forecast faults.
  3. [Section III.C and Section IV] The dataset is synthetically generated, but its size, class balance, feature dimensions, fault injection rates, noise levels, and generation parameters are not reported. Section III.C states that historical fault logs are 'simulated where unavailable,' and Section IV describes controlled fault injection (temperature escalation, vibration, signal interruptions) without quantitative specification. Because the reported accuracy and all downstream KPIs depend on this uncharacterized synthetic data, the results cannot be reproduced or assessed for representativeness. The paper's own future-work statement that real-world pilot deployments remain to be tested confirms that the central validation is missing.
  4. [Section IV, simulated 6-month deployment] The six-month, 20-machine deployment simulation is mentioned in one paragraph with no algorithmic or statistical detail: no event generator, no maintenance policy, no downtime accumulation model, no dispatch cost model, and no comparison of the proposed policy against a described baseline. The sentence explaining the calculation ('comparing the number of successful preemptive interventions versus maintenance visits that resulted in no fault found') is insufficient to reconstruct the experiment. Consequently, the MTBF and MTTR numbers in Table 4 cannot be verified, and the claim that the system 'was demonstrated on existing vending machine hardware' is contradicted by the simulation-only evidence in the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C] The data preprocessing section lists steps but does not state the final feature vector size, the number of samples, or the class distribution; adding these details would aid reproducibility and help readers judge the validity of the 94% accuracy claim.
  2. [Section III.D] The LSTM configuration is under-specified: only 50 epochs and a time window of 10 frames are given, with no mention of hidden layers, units, dropout, or optimizer; similarly, the Random Forest description omits feature counts and cross-validation results despite the claim that grid search was performed.
  3. [Section IV, Table 4] The table's 'N/A' entries for the conventional system's downtime and dispatch reductions are confusing; a baseline percentage or absolute count would be clearer, and the 'Upgrade Cost per Unit' row should state whether this is hardware cost, installation cost, or both.
  4. [References and section numbering] The section numbering jumps from V (Conclusion) to VII (References), and the reference list contains entries that appear incomplete or misattributed (e.g., reference [17] lists three authors but the cited paper is likely to have a different author list); the authors should verify all bibliography entries against the original sources.
  5. [Throughout] The paper repeatedly describes the proposed system as 'novel' without a concrete comparison to the prior vending-specific works cited in references [24] and [25]; a short table contrasting those works with the proposed architecture would strengthen the positioning.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The key failure-probability 'prediction' P_f(t)=1-e^{-λt} is a fitted curve with a learned λ, while the operational KPI claims rest on an undocumented synthetic simulation; the classifier accuracy itself remains independently meaningful.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Discussion and Result (fault probability function and Figure 2)]
    "A key result is illustrated in Figure 2, where the fault probability function P_f(t) is modeled over time using the LSTM network. The model outputs a monotonically increasing function, approximately exponential in form: P_f(t) = 1 - e^{-λt}, where λ is a learned failure rate parameter."

    The paper presents P_f(t)=1-e^{-λt} as a key predictive output, but λ is explicitly a 'learned failure rate parameter' fitted to the synthetic sensor data. The curve is therefore the chosen exponential functional form evaluated at the fitted λ, not an independent forecast validated against held-out failure times. The 'steadily increases... near certainty' behavior is determined by the fit itself, so the claimed prediction reduces by construction to the fitted parameter. No separate evaluation of this survival curve is reported, so it cannot provide independent evidence of predictive skill.

full rationale

The classification evaluation is not circular: Random Forest and LSTM are trained on a 70/15/15 split of labeled synthetic sensor data, and the reported accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score in Table 3 are legitimate out-of-sample metrics for that synthetic distribution. The circularity is concentrated in the failure-probability curve, where the key 'prediction' P_f(t)=1-exp(-λt) is a fitted parametric curve with λ described as learned, making the curve a renamed fit rather than an independent forecast. The operational claims of a 32% downtime reduction and 27% dispatch reduction are not derivable from the reported classifier metrics because no maintenance simulation model, dispatch rule, or baseline process is specified; that is a serious reproducibility and external-validity limitation, but not a by-construction circularity. The paper itself concedes in Section IV that future work includes 'testing real-world pilot deployments,' confirming that no field validation has occurred. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. Score 6 reflects one central 'prediction' that reduces to a fitted parameter, while the classifier accuracy claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted model outputs, hand-chosen hyperparameters, and an unvalidated synthetic data-generation process. There are no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the simulation parameters that define the fault labels, the learned failure rate lambda, and the model hyperparameters; all are internal to the paper and none are benchmarked against external data.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (failure rate in P_f(t)) = not reported
    Section IV defines P_f(t)=1-e^{-lambda t} and states lambda is a learned failure rate parameter. The curve in Figure 2 is therefore fitted to simulated data, not derived.
  • Random Forest tree count = 100
    Section IV states the classifier uses 100 decision trees; this choice is asserted without a tuning analysis, and the reported accuracy depends on it.
  • LSTM training configuration = 50 epochs, 10-frame window
    Section IV states these values; no sensitivity analysis is provided, so the 92.6% accuracy is conditional on hand-chosen settings.
  • Fault injection parameters = not reported
    Section IV describes fault scenarios qualitatively, such as temperature escalation and motor vibration. These choices determine the labels and therefore all reported metrics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Synthetic sensor data with injected faults is representative of real vending machine operating conditions
    Invoked in Section III.C and Section IV, where historical fault logs are simulated where unavailable and fault scenarios are injected. All reported performance and KPI numbers depend on this representativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper The failure probability follows P_f(t)=1-e^{-lambda t}
    Section IV introduces this exponential form to illustrate the model output; it is assumed rather than derived from data or physics.
  • domain assumption Six-month, 20-machine simulation is a valid benchmark for operational KPIs
    Section IV uses this simulated deployment to compute downtime reduction, MTBF, MTTR, and NPS; no real data or validation supports the benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictive Maintenance Optimization for Smart Vending Machines Using IoT and Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5UZWKDZ

@misc{pith2026250702934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictive Maintenance Optimization for Smart Vending Machines Using IoT and Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5UZWKDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02934}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing proliferation of vending machines in public and commercial environments has placed a growing emphasis on operational efficiency and customer satisfaction. Traditional maintenance approaches either reactive or time-based preventive are limited in their ability to preempt machine failures, leading to unplanned downtimes and elevated service costs. This research presents a novel predictive maintenance framework tailored for vending machines by leveraging Internet of Things (IoT) sensors and machine learning (ML) algorithms. The proposed system continuously monitors machine components and operating conditions in real time and applies predictive models to forecast failures before they occur. This enables timely maintenance scheduling, minimizing downtime and extending machine lifespan. The framework was validated through simulated fault data and performance evaluation using classification algorithms. Results show a significant improvement in early fault detection and a reduction in redundant service interventions. The findings indicate that predictive maintenance systems, when integrated into vending infrastructure, can transform operational efficiency and service reliability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noise Filtering: A low-pass filter is applied to smooth sensor signals, especially in vibration data

    work page

  2. [2]

    Missing Value Handling: Linear interpolation is used to reconstruct sparse data points due to temporary signal loss

    work page

  3. [3]

    Outlier Detection: Statistical z-score analysis is performed to remove extreme values caused by false triggers

    work page

  4. [4]

    Normal" or

    Feature Engineering: Features such as temperature rise rate, vibration frequency spectrum, and moving averages are extracted to create a meaningful feature vector for classification. The resulting dataset is split into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) subsets. Historical maintenance records and fault logs (simulated where unavailable) are ...

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry,

    J. Sikorska, M. Hodkiewicz, and L. Ma, "Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry," Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing , vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1803–1836, Jul. 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems,

    J. Lee, B. Bagheri, and H.-A. Kao, "A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems," Manufacturing Letters , vol. 3, pp. 18–23, Jan. 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Event-driven risk management for agile business processes,

    A. Bousdekis, D. Apostolou, and G. Mentzas, "Event-driven risk management for agile business processes," Business Process Management Journal , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 987–1010, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Machine learning for predictive maintenance: A multiple classifier approach,

    G. A. Susto, A. Schirru, S. Pampuri, S. McLoone, and A. Beghi, "Machine learning for predictive maintenance: A multiple classifier approach," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 812–820, Jun. 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Ensemble learning for fault diagnosis in manufacturing systems,

    W. Yan, L. Wang, and Z. Zhang, "Ensemble learning for fault diagnosis in manufacturing systems," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 28, pp. 1125–1138, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Data-driven methods for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment: A survey,

    W. Zhang, H. Yang, Z. Wang, and Y. Liu, "Data-driven methods for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment: A survey," IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 2213–2227, Sep. 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance,

    T. P. Carvalho, F. A. Soares, R. Vita, R. da P. Francisco, J. P. Basto, and S. G. Alcalá, "A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance," Computers & Industrial Engineering , vol. 137, p. 106024, Oct. 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A review on digital twin applications for predictive maintenance in manufacturing,

    M. Zonta, P. Fanti, A. M. Mangini, and M. Bonfe, "A review on digital twin applications for predictive maintenance in manufacturing," Procedia Manufacturing , vol. 42, pp. 120–126, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A review on data-driven predictive maintenance for the smart manufacturing systems,

    Y. Zhang, J. Wu, M. Jiang, and S. Yin, "A review on data-driven predictive maintenance for the smart manufacturing systems," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 3468–3477, May 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Predictive maintenance approach based on hybrid model combining machine learning and fuzzy logic,

    M. Mhamdi, M. Boulmakoul, and A. Lbath, "Predictive maintenance approach based on hybrid model combining machine learning and fuzzy logic," Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 167, p. 114163, Mar. 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Metrics for evaluating performance of prognostic techniques,

    A. Saxena, J. Celaya, B. Saha, S. Saha, and K. Goebel, “Metrics for evaluating performance of prognostic techniques,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) , Denver, CO, USA, 2008, pp. 1–17

    2008

  8. [16]

    A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system,

    B. Alaswad and Y. Xiang, “A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 157, pp. 54–63, Jan. 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Multi-objective reinforcement learning for smart maintenance scheduling,

    C. Zhang, P. Lim, K. P. Tee, and C. Guan, “Multi-objective reinforcement learning for smart maintenance scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 6449–6457, Oct. 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Intelligent fault detection and condition monitoring using deep learning techniques: A comprehensive review,

    A. K. Sahoo, B. K. Sahu, and D. P. Mohapatra, “Intelligent fault detection and condition monitoring using deep learning techniques: A comprehensive review,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 32, pp. 1857–1877, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Edge intelligence for predictive maintenance in industrial IoT,

    A. Mosallam, R. Z. Raza, A. Eltawil, and M. El-Chamie, “Edge intelligence for predictive maintenance in industrial IoT,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 16, pp. 14096–14109, Aug. 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    A lightweight deep learning model for predictive maintenance on edge devices,

    B. Ghosh and S. Ghosh, “A lightweight deep learning model for predictive maintenance on edge devices,” Computers & Industrial Engineering , vol. 164, p. 107886, May 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Remaining useful life estimation of critical components with application to prognostics,

    M. Medjaher, D. A. Tobon-Mejia, and N. Zerhouni, “Remaining useful life estimation of critical components with application to prognostics,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 48–60, Mar. 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction,

    Y. Lei, N. Li, L. Guo, T. Yan, N. Li, and J. Lin, “Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing , vol. 104, pp. 799–834, May 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series,

    P. Malhotra, L. Vig, G. Shroff, and P. Agarwal, “Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series,” in Proc. European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks (ESANN) , Bruges, Belgium, 2015, pp. 89–94

    2015

  16. [24]

    Data-driven hybrid approach for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment,

    H. Wu, Z. Wang, and L. Wang, “Data-driven hybrid approach for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 30569–30579, Mar. 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    A comparison of data-driven and physics-based models for equipment health monitoring and prognostics,

    E. Zio and P. Baraldi, “A comparison of data-driven and physics-based models for equipment health monitoring and prognostics,” in Proc. ESREL , Sep. 2011, pp. 1183–1191

    2011

  18. [26]

    Data-driven predictive maintenance for vending machines using machine learning,

    N. Javed, M. Ilyas, and M. M. Rathore, “Data-driven predictive maintenance for vending machines using machine learning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp) , Jeju, South Korea, 2021, pp. 111–115

    2021

  19. [27]

    Smart vending machine monitoring system based on IoT and predictive analytics,

    M. Maleki, M. A. Badamchizadeh, and J. Askari, “Smart vending machine monitoring system based on IoT and predictive analytics,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT) , vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 398–402, Aug. 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. A. K. Suykens, T. Van Gestel, and J. De Brabanter, Least Squares Support Vector Machines , World Scientific Publishing, 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    Federated learning algorithms for scalable and privacy-preserving maintenance diagnostics,

    C. Zhang, C. Zhang, and T. Basar, “Federated learning algorithms for scalable and privacy-preserving maintenance diagnostics,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2925–2935, Apr. 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Unsupervised machine learning for detecting anomalies and predicting failure in smart cities,

    M. M. Hassan, M. A. Hossain, and M. A. Alnuem, “Unsupervised machine learning for detecting anomalies and predicting failure in smart cities,” IEEE Access , vol. 6, pp. 54355–54365, Aug. 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine Learning , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, Oct. 2001. [30] D. Yu and L. Deng, Deep Learning: Methods and Applications , Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing, vol. 7, no. 3–4, 2014

    2001

  24. [32]

    Active learning literature survey,

    B. Settles, “Active learning literature survey,” Computer Sciences Technical Report 1648 , University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Papoulis and S

    A. Papoulis and S. U. Pillai, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes , 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2002

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.