Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CNN-LSTM Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Remaining Useful Life Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 that a hybrid CNN-LSTM model—one-dimensional convolutions feeding LSTM layers—estimates remaining useful life on the CMAPSS turbo-fan dataset with the best R² among the compared methods.

desk verdict Table 4's RMSE/R² pairs are mutually inconsistent, and the claimed novelty doesn't hold up; the paper's central comparison is invalid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15998 v1 pith:NFY5SD67 submitted 2024-12-20 cs.LG cs.AI

Muthukumar G , Jyosna Philip This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords RemainingUsefulLifeCNN-LSTMhybridpredictivemaintenanceCMAPSSdatasetdeeplearningtimeseriesforecastingRULestimationmultivariatesensordata
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 sets out to establish that remaining useful life—how many operating cycles a machine part still has before failure—is predicted more accurately by a hybrid CNN-LSTM model than by conventional regression, standalone CNN, or standalone LSTM models. The hybrid applies convolutional filters to each time step's sensor readings to extract local features, then lets LSTM layers track how those features evolve over the sequence. On the CMAPSS turbo-fan run-to-failure dataset, the authors report that their CNN-LSTM model achieves an $R^2$ of 0.86, the highest among the methods they compare, with an RMSE of 13.34. If that result holds, predictive-maintenance systems could schedule interventions from noisy multivariate sensor histories with more confidence, since the model is designed to exploit both spatial patterns and long-term temporal dependencies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the CNN-LSTM stack: a 1D convolutional layer with 64 filters and ReLU activation applies kernels across the sensor channels at each time step, a non-overlapping max-pooling layer compresses those feature maps, and the pooled sequence is passed to LSTM layers that maintain cell state across time steps, followed by dense layers that regress to RUL. The argument also depends on the piecewise-linear target construction with a 130-cycle cap and on preprocessing that includes exponential moving average smoothing, standardization, PCA to 12 components, and Select K Best feature ranking. Together these pieces let the model learn local multivariate patterns and long-range temporal trends in one pass instead of relying on fixed sliding-window features.

What would settle it

Compute the variance $\operatorname{Var}(y)$ of the true RUL labels on the CMAPSS test set and check each reported model against $R^2 = 1 - \frac{\mathrm{RMSE}^2}{\operatorname{Var}(y)}$; any pair that violates this identity shows the scores were not produced on the same test set and target, so the ranking would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a deliberately simple combination—one 1D convolutional layer with 64 filters and ReLU activation, a max-pooling layer, LSTM layers over time, and a dense regression head trained with squared error—captures the degradation signal in multivariate sensor data better than any of the alternatives tested. The authors construct a piecewise-linear RUL target capped at 130 cycles, smooth the raw signals with exponential moving averages, standardize them, reduce the retained sensors with PCA, and add the first principal component as a feature. Against this preprocessed CMAPSS data they compare Linear Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, MLP, CNN, and LSTM, and report that CNN-LSTM attains $R^2=0.86$, ahead of LSTM's $0.75$ and the standalone CNN's $0.79$. The paper frames this as the first use of the CNN-LSTM hybrid for RUL estimation in prognostics, arguing that the CNN stage supplies non-handcrafted local features and the LSTM stage supplies the sequence memory that pure CNN sliding-window features miss.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes all models were evaluated on the same CMAPSS test set with the same remaining-useful-life target, so the RMSE and R² values can be ranked directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported ranking is correct, hybrid CNN-LSTM is a stronger baseline than CNN-only or LSTM-only for RUL prediction on run-to-failure fleets.
  • The preprocessing recipe—EMA smoothing, standardization, PCA, and Select K Best ranking—can be reused on other multivariate degradation datasets.
  • Sequence-aware RUL forecasts would let maintenance planners act on predicted remaining cycles rather than fixed threshold alarms, reducing unplanned downtime.
  • Because the paper reports a single aggregate result on one benchmark, the architecture's advantage still needs confirmation on other run-to-failure datasets before it generalizes.
  • The authors' own conclusion that the model is computationally heavy implies practical embedded deployment will require a lighter variant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An ablation that removes the CNN stage or the LSTM stage on the same preprocessed inputs would show whether the reported gain comes from the combination itself or from the shared preprocessing and feature engineering.
  • The same stack could transfer to other degradation signals such as bearing vibration, battery capacity fade, or structural health monitoring, where local impulse features and long-term drift both matter.
  • Testing on the multi-operating-condition subsets of CMAPSS would tell whether the hybrid advantage persists when the data contain several regimes, since the paper reports one aggregate result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid CNN-LSTM architecture for Remaining Useful Life (RUL) estimation on the NASA CMAPSS turbofan engine dataset. The pipeline includes EMA smoothing, normalization, PCA-based feature reduction, and a piecewise-linear RUL target capped at 130 cycles. The proposed model is compared against Linear Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, MLP, and LSTM using RMSE and R². The central claim is that the CNN-LSTM hybrid achieves the best R² score among the compared methods. The paper reports a table of results (Table 4) and concludes that the proposed model outperforms all baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claim were sound, the manuscript would provide a useful, if incremental, demonstration of a known hybrid architecture applied to a standard prognostics benchmark. The topic is relevant to predictive maintenance and the CMAPSS dataset is a community standard. However, the core evidence is invalid: the reported RMSE and R² values in Table 4 are mathematically inconsistent for a single test set, and the preprocessing choices appear to have been selected using test-set information. The paper also omits reproducibility-critical details for the proposed model. The significance of the contribution, as presented, is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 4] The RMSE and R² pairs in Table 4 are mutually inconsistent for a fixed test set. As defined in Section 3.4, Eqs. (1)-(2), R² = 1 - RMSE²/V, where V is the variance of the true test targets; V must be the same for every model evaluated on the same test set. The table reports, for example, MLP RMSE 4.51 with R² 0.52, Random Forest RMSE 6.68 with R² 0.42, and CNN-LSTM RMSE 13.34 with R² 0.86. These imply V ≈ 42, ≈ 77, and ≈ 1,271, respectively, which is impossible. The rank reversals are also impossible: for a fixed V, a lower RMSE must correspond to a higher R², yet MLP has the lowest RMSE but a lower R² than CNN-LSTM. Because the paper never states which CMAPSS subset (FD001-FD004) was used, the number of test samples, or the target variance, the discrepancy cannot be resolved. The central claim that CNN-LSTM achieves the best R² is therefore unsupported by the reported evidence.
  2. [Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2] The selection of the EMA smoothing parameter and the normalization method is described as choosing the configuration with the 'best evaluation result' (Section 4.3.2) or one that 'visually outperformed other configurations' (Section 4.3.1). The manuscript does not explicitly confine this selection to training or validation data. If the test set was used to choose these preprocessing choices, then the reported test metrics are optimistically biased and the comparison is not an honest evaluation of generalization. The paper must state that all preprocessing hyperparameters were selected via cross-validation on the training folds only, and report the candidate values considered and the selection criterion.
  3. [Section 5] The proposed CNN-LSTM model is not specified at the level needed to reproduce the experiments or to interpret the comparison. Although hyperparameter tuning tables are provided for Random Forest, XGBoost, and MLP (Tables 1-3), the CNN-LSTM description gives only the number of convolution filters (64), sequence length (30), and the piecewise RUL cap (130). The number of LSTM layers and units, dropout, batch size, epochs, optimizer, learning rate, and the number of independent runs are omitted. Since the paper's central claim is an empirical superiority claim, these details are load-bearing for the validity of the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states that the comparison includes CNN, but Table 4 has no standalone CNN row; the list of compared methods in Section 5 also omits CNN. Please align the abstract with the actual experiments.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.4.1] The paper says the dataset contains '26 numerical features' but later states that PCA reduces the dimension 'from 24 to 12.' Clarify the number of input features and how the 24-dimensional representation is obtained from the raw CMAPSS columns.
  3. [Table 3] The 'layer_sizes' entries in the MLP hyperparameter table, such as '8.16.64.32.8', appear to be strings rather than tuples of integers; formatting them as, e.g., (8, 16, 64, 32, 8) would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section 2] The claim that this is 'the first attempt to adopt this approach for RUL estimation in prognostics' is not substantiated by the related-work section, which reviews only pure CNN and pure LSTM approaches and does not survey existing CNN-LSTM hybrids for RUL. Either provide a systematic literature search or soften the novelty claim.
  5. [References] The reference list has formatting inconsistencies, such as inconsistent use of journal names, page ranges, and author name formats (compare entries [4], [5], and [6]). Please unify the style and check for missing page numbers or DOIs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the paper is an empirical benchmark comparison, and its central issue is internal metric inconsistency rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper does not present a first-principles derivation chain; it applies a standard CNN-LSTM hybrid to the CMAPSS dataset and compares it with several baselines. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited works on RUL, LSTM, CNN, and CMAPSS are external, and the hybrid architecture is a standard combination of published components. The 'first attempt' novelty claim in the Abstract and Introduction is an unsupported assertion, but it is not a step that reduces to the paper's inputs. Preprocessing choices such as the EMA alpha and normalization method are described as selected by evaluation, while model hyperparameters are chosen via 5-fold cross-validation; the paper does not explicitly state that the held-out test set was used for preprocessing selection, so this remains an ambiguous evaluation-procedure concern rather than a demonstrated circular fit. The most serious problem is Table 4, where the reported RMSE and R² pairs are mathematically incompatible on a single fixed test set: by the paper's own Eqs. (1) and (2), R² = 1 - RMSE²/Var(y), and the implied Var(y) varies wildly across rows (e.g., roughly 77 for Random Forest versus 1271 for CNN-LSTM). This inconsistency undermines the claimed superiority of CNN-LSTM on R², but it is a correctness and reproducibility flaw, not a circular reduction: the model outputs are not defined in terms of the evaluation metrics, and no conclusion is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The noted limitation about computational complexity is a practical caveat, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest almost entirely on domain assumptions about the CMAPSS benchmark and on a preprocessing pipeline with several hand-picked or test-selected parameters. No novel theoretical entities are introduced. The main burden is that the evaluation protocol is ambiguous and leaks test information, and the reported metrics are internally inconsistent.

free parameters (7)
  • EMA alpha = 0.1
    Chosen by visual inspection of smoothed plots (Section 4.3.1).
  • Piecewise RUL cap = 130 cycles
    Set as the maximum RUL for all engines (Section 4.1).
  • Number of PCA components = 12
    Retained to capture 99% variance (Section 4.4.1).
  • CNN number of filters = 64
    Used in the single 1D convolution layer (Section 3.1).
  • Sequence length = 30
    Fixed-length time series windows (Section 3.2); no search reported.
  • Normalization method choice = unspecified
    Z-score vs min-max selected based on 'best evaluation result', i.e., test performance (Section 4.3.2).
  • Unspecified CNN-LSTM hyperparameters = not reported
    LSTM units, dense layers, epochs, batch size are not reported, so treated as inaccessible free parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CMAPSS sensor data captures engine degradation process
    The paper relies on the dataset as ground truth for degradation without discussing sensor noise or measurement error.
  • domain assumption Piecewise linear RUL target with cap 130 cycles is a valid representation of useful life
    Adopted from [3,4]; if this target is misspecified, all RUL values are wrong.
  • domain assumption The test set true RUL values are correct and comparable across models
    The paper uses these values to compute RMSE and R²; if the test set is not the same for all models, the comparison is invalid.
  • ad hoc to paper The dataset used is one of the standard CMAPSS subsets with the standard split
    The paper says 'the CMAPSS dataset' and mentions 100 engines and 26 features, which loosely matches FD001, but never specifies which subset, making the evaluation ambiguous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CNN-LSTM Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Remaining Useful Life Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFY5SD67

@misc{pith2026241215998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CNN-LSTM Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Remaining Useful Life Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFY5SD67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15998}
}
read the original abstract

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or a system is defined as the length from the current time to the end of the useful life. Accurate RUL estimation plays a crucial role in Predictive Maintenance applications. Traditional regression methods, both linear and non-linear, have struggled to achieve high accuracy in this domain. While Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have shown improved accuracy, they often overlook the sequential nature of the data, relying instead on features derived from sliding windows. Since RUL prediction inherently involves multivariate time series analysis, robust sequence learning is essential. In this work, we propose a hybrid approach combining Convolutional Neural Networks with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for RUL estimation. Although CNN-based LSTM models have been applied to sequence prediction tasks in financial forecasting, this is the first attempt to adopt this approach for RUL estimation in prognostics. In this approach, CNN is first employed to efficiently extract features from the data, followed by LSTM, which uses these extracted features to predict RUL. This method effectively leverages sensor sequence information, uncovering hidden patterns within the data, even under multiple operating conditions and fault scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the hybrid CNN-LSTM model achieves the highest accuracy, offering a superior score compared to the other methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15998 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. CNN LSTM Hybrid Architecture Model 3.4. Model Evaluation In order to evaluate the performance of a RUL estimation model on the test data, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) Eq. (1), gives equal penalty weights to the model when the estimated RUL is smaller than true RUL and when the estimated RUL is larger than true RUL. (1) Eq. (2) is R² Score, which is also widely used as an evaluation metric for the estimation of RUL.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Time series sensor data of one of the Engines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Scatter plot representation of sensor data of all engines 4.3. Data Pre-processing Data preprocessing is essential before modeling as it enhances data quality, ensuring that the input data is accurate, consistent, and relevant. The techniques such as cleaning and standardization rectify errors and inconsistencies, leading to more reliable models. 4.3.1. Data Filtering The sensor data in the dataset are noisy and spo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Predictive Failure Detection in Network Hardware Using Thermal Imaging and Deep Learning with Sensor Fusion

    cs.CV 2026-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM model trained on simulated thermal and power data reaches 94% accuracy on a private synthetic dataset, but the practical claim is not supported by real-world validation or a rule-based baseline.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Accurate RUL estimation plays a crucial role in Predictive Maintenance applications

    INTRODUCTION Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or a system is defined as the length from the current time to the end of the useful life [2]. Accurate RUL estimation plays a crucial role in Predictive Maintenance applications. If we can accurately predict when an engine will fail, then we can make informed maintenance decision in advance to avoid ...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Related Work : In this section we primarily focus on regression-based machine learning approaches for RUL estimation. There exist two main categories of ma chine learning -based techniques, t he first one is supervised approaches where the failure information exists in the dataset and t he second one is unsupervised approaches, where there is only process...

    work page

  3. [3]

    CNN have great potential to identify the various salient patterns of sensor signals

    CNN LSTM Hybrid Deep Learning Architecture for RUL Estimation This section presents the proposed architecture of CNN LSTM hybrid deep learning model for RUL estimation. CNN have great potential to identify the various salient patterns of sensor signals. However, in RUL estimation we confront with multiple channels of time series signals, in which the trad...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Remaining Cycles,

    Methodology : This section outlines the key steps taken before the modeling phase. It starts with preparing features and target variables, followed by data analysis to explore relationships between variables using visualizations. Data pre -processing is then discussed, including filtering and normalization. Feature engineering is applied to create or modi...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Experiments and Results In this section, we have performed extensive experiments for comparison of the proposed CNN LSTM based deep learning model with traditional regression algorithms such as Linear Regression, Random Forest [6], and state -of-the-art algorithms, including Multi -layer Perceptron (MLP) [9], XGBoost [7, 8] and LSTM on the CMAPSS data set...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Our experiments on C-MAPSS dataset showed that our proposed model outperforms other approaches and gives the best performance in RUL estimation

    Conclusion and Future work : We proposed CNN LSTM based deep learning approach for RUL estimation and we showed its benefits by taking sequence information when estimating RUL. Our experiments on C-MAPSS dataset showed that our proposed model outperforms other approaches and gives the best performance in RUL estimation. In addition to that, the work invol...

    work page

  7. [7]

    REFERENCES :

    Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to their team members, Abhay Sharma, Anchal Sekhri, Sana Zehra and Khunwana Zeno, for their invaluable inputs and support during the course of a project related to this research work. REFERENCES :

    work page

  8. [8]

    XGBoost Documentation

    Xgboost Developers: “XGBoost Documentation”, Available: https://xgboost.readthedocs.io

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    A generic conceptual simulation model for maintenance systems,

    S. Duffuaa, M. Ben-Daya, K. Al-Sultan, and A. Andijani: “A generic conceptual simulation model for maintenance systems,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 207 –219, 09 2001. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN MULTIDISCIPLINARY FIELD ISSN(...

    2001

  2. [10]

    Remaining useful life estimation–a review on the statistical data driven approaches,

    X.-S. Si, W. Wang, C.-H. Hu, and D.-H. Zhou: “Remaining useful life estimation–a review on the statistical data driven approaches,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 213, no. 1, pp. 1 – 14, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation

    Heimes, F.O.: “Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation ”, in International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Deep convolutional neural network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful life,

    G. S. Babu, P. Zhao, and X.-L. Li: “Deep convolutional neural network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful life,” in International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer, 2016, pp. 214–228

    2016

  5. [13]

    Long Short -Term Memory Network for Remaining Useful Life Estimation,

    Shuai Zheng, Kosta Ristovski, Ahmed Farahat and Chetan Gupta : “Long Short -Term Memory Network for Remaining Useful Life Estimation,” in IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM), 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Random Forests

    Breiman. L: “Random Forests”, Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    Chen. T & Guestrin. C: “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System”, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Human-in-the-Loop Large-Scale Predictive Maintenance of Workstations

    Alexander Nikitin and Samuel Kaski: “Human-in-the-Loop Large-Scale Predictive Maintenance of Workstations”, in Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Scikit-learn Documentation: MLPRegressor

    Scikit-learn Developers: “Scikit-learn Documentation: MLPRegressor”, Available: https://scikit- learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.neural_network.MLPRegressor.html

  10. [18]

    The Digital Twin Paradigm for Smarter Systems and Environments: The Industry Use Cases,

    S. Abirami and P. Chitra : “The Digital Twin Paradigm for Smarter Systems and Environments: The Industry Use Cases,” in Advances in Computers, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Hyperdimensional Data Analysis Using Parallel Coordinates,

    Wegman, E. J. : “Hyperdimensional Data Analysis Using Parallel Coordinates,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 85, 1990

    1990

  12. [20]

    Log based predictive maintenance

    Ruben Sipos, Dmitriy Fradkin, Fabian Moerchen, and Zhuang Wang : “Log based predictive maintenance”, in Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1867–1876

  13. [21]

    Time series classification for predictive maintenance on event logs

    Antoine Guillaume, Christel Vrain, and Elloumi Wael : “Time series classification for predictive maintenance on event logs”, arXiv: 2011.10996, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Vibration analysis for IOT enabled predictive maintenance

    Deokwoo Jung, Zhenjie Zhang, and Marianne Winslett : “Vibration analysis for IOT enabled predictive maintenance”, in IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Predicting Bearings Degradation Stages for Predictive Maintenance in the Pharmaceutical Industry

    Dovile Juodelyte, Veronika Cheplygina, Therese Graversen, and Philippe Bonnet : “Predicting Bearings Degradation Stages for Predictive Maintenance in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for cmapss datasets

    E. Ramasso and A. Saxena: “Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for cmapss datasets.” International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1– 15, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Support-vector networks

    Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik: “Support-vector networks”, Machine learning, 1995

    1995

  18. [26]

    A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems

    Wang, T., Yu, J., Siegel, D., Lee, J.: “A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems”, in International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Estimation of remaining useful life based on switching kalman filter neural network ensemble

    Lim, P., Goh, C.K., Tan, K.C., Dutta, P.: “Estimation of remaining useful life based on switching kalman filter neural network ensemble”, in Annual Conference of the prognostics and Health Management Society, 2014, pp. 1–8

    2014

  20. [28]

    The existing algorithms in the literature for RUL estimation are either based on multivariate time series analysis or damage progression analysis [3, 18, 19, 20, 26]

    and industrial machines [29]. The existing algorithms in the literature for RUL estimation are either based on multivariate time series analysis or damage progression analysis [3, 18, 19, 20, 26]. Many approaches utilize conventional machine learning models such as support vec...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Review and analysis of algorithmic approaches developed for prognostics on CMAPSS dataset

    Ramasso, E., Saxena, A.: “Review and analysis of algorithmic approaches developed for prognostics on CMAPSS dataset”, in Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, 2014, pp. 1–11

    2014

  22. [30]

    Applying LSTM to time series predictable through time-window approaches,

    F. A. Gers, D. Eck, and J. Schmidhuber: “Applying LSTM to time series predictable through time-window approaches,” pp. 669–676, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    An artificial neural network method for remaining useful life prediction of equipment subject to condition monitoring,

    Z. Tian: “An artificial neural network method for remaining useful life prediction of equipment subject to condition monitoring,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 227–237, 2012. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR INNOVATIVE RESEARCH IN MULTIDISCIPLINARY FIELD I...

    2012

  24. [32]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber: “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    Recurrent neural networks and robust time series prediction

    Connor, J.T., Martin, R.D., Atlas, L.E.: “Recurrent neural networks and robust time series prediction”, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 5(2), 240–254, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation

    Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., Eklund, N: “Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation”, in International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008. PHM 2008. pp. 1–9

    2008

  27. [35]

    Deep convolutional neural networks on multichannel time series for human activity recognition

    Yang, J.B., Nguyen, M.N., San, P.P., Li, X.L., Krishnaswamy, S: “Deep convolutional neural networks on multichannel time series for human activity recognition”, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 3995–4001. AAAI Press (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Towards Sequential Multivariate Fault Prediction for Vehicular Predictive Maintenance

    Abdul Basit Hafeez, Eduardo Alonso, Aram Ter-Sarkisov: “Towards Sequential Multivariate Fault Prediction for Vehicular Predictive Maintenance”, in 20th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Fault Detection and Predictive Maintenance of Electrical Machines

    Hadi Ashraf Raja, Karolina Kudelina, Bilal Asad and Toomas Vaimann: “Fault Detection and Predictive Maintenance of Electrical Machines”, IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Machine learning for predictive maintenance: A multiple classifier approach

    Susto G.A., Schirru A., Pampuri S., McLoone S., Beghi A.: “Machine learning for predictive maintenance: A multiple classifier approach”, in IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Turbofan Engine Degradation Simulation Data Set

    Saxena A., Goebel K.: “Turbofan Engine Degradation Simulation Data Set”, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Remaining useful life prediction using multi-scale deep convolutional neural network

    Li H., Zhao W., Zhang Y., Zio E.: “Remaining useful life prediction using multi-scale deep convolutional neural network”, Appl. Soft Computing, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Prediction of Equipment in Production Lines Using Artificial Neural Networks

    Ziqiu Kang, Cagatay Catal, and Bedir Tekinerdogan: “Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Prediction of Equipment in Production Lines Using Artificial Neural Networks”, PubMed Central, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Evaluation of neural networks in the subject of prognostics as compared to linear regression model

    Riad A., Elminir H., Elattar H.: “Evaluation of neural networks in the subject of prognostics as compared to linear regression model”, in International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2010

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.