Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Hybrid Gaussian Process Regression with Temporal Feature Extraction for Partially Interpretable Remaining Useful Life Interval Prediction in Aeroengine Prognostics

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid LSTM-GPR model narrows aeroengine RUL intervals by more than 50% while keeping point forecasts competitive.

desk verdict The paper's central interval-prediction claims collapse on arithmetic: the FD004 CWC value in Table 2 is impossible under the paper's own formula, so the core evaluation is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15185 v1 pith:56P2N37M submitted 2024-11-19 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

Tian Niu , Zijun Xu , Heng Luo , Ziqing Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ML
keywords remainingusefullifepredictionGaussianprocessregressionintervalsLSTMtemporalfeatureextractionaeroengineprognosticsC-MAPSSdatasetuncertaintyquantificationimportance
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

This paper argues that replacing raw sensor windows with LSTM-learned temporal features as inputs to a Gaussian process regressor (GPR) gives aeroengine remaining-useful-life (RUL) predictions that stay competitive with deep learning while adding 95% confidence intervals that are far narrower than those of existing interval methods. On the four C-MAPSS sub-datasets the paper reports normalized averaged width (NAW) reductions of at least 50.70% on average and improved coverage-width criterion (CWC) values on the first three sub-datasets. The model also ranks sensor contributions by permuting each feature, giving engineers a partial interpretability layer for maintenance planning. The central claim is that a GPR operating on a compressed temporal latent space can quantify degradation uncertainty in a structured way.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair formed by LSTM gating and the squared-exponential Gaussian process posterior. The LSTM equations define forget, input, and output gates that compress each sliding window into a hidden state $h$; the GP then places a multivariate normal prior on RUL values with kernel $k(h,h')$ and noise variance $\delta^2$, and the posterior mean and variance generate the point forecast and the interval endpoints. A permutation-based feature-importance component measures the drop in prediction accuracy when each sensor is shuffled, producing the $\lambda$ ranking. The mechanism matters because it lets a Bayesian non-parametric regressor work in a compact temporal latent space rather than on high-dimensional raw sensor streams, which is what the paper credits for both narrow intervals and partial interpretability.

What would settle it

Compute the empirical coverage of the HRP 95% intervals on the FD004 test engines, separately for each of the six operating conditions, and compare it with the nominal 95%; if coverage falls well below 95% in any condition while NAW stays at 28%, the narrow intervals are a symptom of miscalibration rather than calibrated uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the hybrid HRP model learns a probabilistic mapping from multivariate sensor histories to RUL such that point predictions match or beat deep learners and the 95% prediction interval is tighter than existing interval-prediction baselines. The LSTM compresses a sliding window of 14 selected sensors into hidden states $h$; the GP prior is $y \sim N(\mu, K + \delta^2 I)$ with squared-exponential kernel $k(h,h') = \tau^2 \exp(-\|h-h'\|^2/(2\eta^2))$, and the predictive interval for a new test point is the posterior mean plus or minus $1.96$ times the square root of the posterior variance. The paper reports RMSE values of 13.09, 12.33, 13.49, and 19.65 on FD001-FD004, with the FD002 value the best among all compared models, and NAW values of 21%, 29%, 23%, and 28%, which it interprets as a consistent interval-narrowing advantage. CWC improvements are claimed on FD001, FD002, and FD003.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the hidden states of an LSTM trained only on a Huber pointwise RUL loss form a space in which the Gaussian process posterior variance is a well-calibrated 95% interval across all operating conditions and fault modes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On FD001-FD003, the reported NAW values of 21-29% would give maintenance planners considerably tighter 95% failure windows than the compared LSTM-BS, IESGP, and AGCNN baselines.
  • The FD002 RMSE of 12.33, the best among compared models, suggests that a GP head on LSTM features can improve point accuracy under multiple operating conditions while also providing uncertainty.
  • Permutation-based feature rankings give a concrete sensor priority list, notably sensors 6, 10, and 13, that can be used for condition monitoring and maintenance focus.
  • Because the GP posterior updates with new data points, the method implies a natural online loop: as more run-to-failure history accumulates, the interval for a given engine should narrow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence we draw from Table 2 is that on FD004, where six operating conditions and two fault modes combine, the narrow intervals are not backed by coverage: the CWC of 468.43, versus 95.56 for AGCNN, indicates miscalibration far more than good uncertainty quantification.
  • The paper never reports empirical coverage probabilities separately from CWC; reporting coverage per sub-dataset and per operating condition would settle whether the NAW reductions come from calibrated narrowness or overconfidence.
  • Since the LSTM is trained on a Huber pointwise loss, no objective ties the GP variance to observed residuals; adding a calibration or maximum-likelihood term on the GP's predictive distribution is a natural, testable extension that could repair the FD004 case.
  • A practical extension consistent with the paper's architecture is post-hoc recalibration of the GP variance, for instance by scaling the posterior standard deviation, before constructing intervals; this would preserve the point forecasts while restoring coverage.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes HRP, a hybrid method that feeds LSTM hidden states into a Gaussian process regressor to produce point and interval predictions of remaining useful life (RUL) on the C-MAPSS benchmark. The paper claims that HRP consistently narrows normalized average width (NAW) and improves the coverage width criterion (CWC) relative to several baselines across all four sub-datasets, while providing feature importance analysis. The evaluation reports RMSE, NAW, and CWC for FD001–FD004.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, the paper would offer a practical hybrid of deep temporal feature extraction and Bayesian nonparametric uncertainty quantification, with an interpretability layer, for aeroengine prognostics. The idea of using LSTM hidden states as GP inputs is a reasonable direction. However, the paper's own numerical evidence contains an internal contradiction that invalidates the reported interval comparisons, and the lack of repeated-run statistics further weakens the empirical claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 and Eq. (13)] The FD004 row of Table 2 reports NAW = 28.00 and CWC = 468.43. Under the stated definition CWC = NAW × exp(1 − coverage/α), and since coverage is a probability in [0,1] and α > 0, the exponential factor is at most e, so CWC ≤ e·NAW ≈ 76.1. The reported value 468.43 exceeds this bound by a factor of six. Either Eq. (13) is not the metric used to produce Table 2, or the FD004 CWC entry is erroneous. Because the claim that HRP 'consistently outperforms existing approaches' on all four sub-datasets rests directly on these numbers, the reported evaluation does not currently establish the paper's central interval-performance claim.
  2. [Comparison with state-of-the-art methods (Table 2)] Even setting aside the internal inconsistency, the FD004 CWC of 468.43 is far worse than every baseline, including AGCNN's 95.56. The text acknowledges improvement only 'on the first three sub-datasets' for CWC but then concludes 'Out of the four sub-datasets, our method consistently outperforms existing approaches.' This is a direct contradiction of the table. The authors must either correct the values or revise the claim.
  3. [Table 6 and 'Evaluation setting'] The sliding-window sizes are reported together with 'Min life cycle in test datasets' and 'Number of testing time windows' for each sub-dataset. If these test-set statistics were used to choose the window lengths, the evaluation is compromised by information leakage. The manuscript does not explain how the window sizes were selected or justify their dependence on test-set properties. The authors should describe the selection procedure and confirm that the test data were not used for hyperparameter choice.
  4. [Eqs. (7)–(9)] The posterior mean in Eq. (7) contains µ(h) and µ(h*), but the prediction equation (9) is written as K(h*)⊺(K + δ²I)^{-1}y, which corresponds to a zero-mean GP. The manuscript states 'assuming a GP(0, K) prior' immediately after presenting the general mean formulation, but then the narrative continues to refer to µ. This inconsistency needs to be resolved, and the GP hyperparameters η, τ, and δ should be reported with their fitting procedure for reproducibility.
  5. [Prognostic results analysis] The paper reports only NAW and CWC, not the coverage probability itself. A narrow interval that misses the true RUL most of the time yields a low NAW but is not a valid 95% interval. The claim that 'the predicted intervals consistently cover the real RUL' is supported only by selected example engines (Fig. 4), not by quantitative coverage on the full test sets. The authors should report coverage probabilities alongside NAW and CWC for all four datasets.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The coverage indicator is written as Cj = 1 if RULj ∈ [yU_j, yL_j]; the interval endpoints should be reversed to [yL_j, yU_j].
  2. [Importance analysis and Conclusion] The importance analysis section describes permutation-based feature importance, but the Conclusion states that 'by adaptively employing additional random forest regression' the influence of sensors is assessed. These two accounts should be reconciled.
  3. [Data preprocessing] There is a typo 'standard deviation deviation' in the normalization paragraph.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The Huber loss definition uses 'delta' in the second case; this should be the same symbol δ used elsewhere.
  5. [References] References [16] and [17] are the same paper by Hochreiter and Schmidhuber; one should be removed or replaced.
  6. [Figure 4] The caption refers to red and green segments indicating over- and under-prediction, but these colors are not shown or explained in the figure itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GP-based interval predictions are generated by the stated posterior equations on held-out test data, not by construction from the evaluation metrics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Temporal features are extracted by an LSTM trained with a Huber pointwise loss (Eqs. 1-2), and these hidden states are fed into a squared-exponential Gaussian process with the standard prior and predictive equations (Eqs. 3-9). The reported 95% intervals are computed from the posterior covariance via yL = yhat - 1.96*sqrt(km) and yU = yhat + 1.96*sqrt(km), which are not defined in terms of the reported NAW or CWC metrics; nothing in the derivation fits the interval widths or coverage to the evaluation scores. Hyperparameters and window lengths are selected from prior empirical studies (Ref. 31) and standard GP practice rather than from the test-set outcomes, and the method is compared against external baseline models on held-out test engines. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no prediction that reduces to a fitted input by construction. The anomalous FD004 CWC entry in Table 2 (CWC = 468.43 exceeding e*NAW under Eq. 13) would be a correctness or reproducibility issue if substantiated, but it is not a circularity concern because the intervals themselves were not constructed from that metric. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GP theory, on the C-MAPSS simulation as ground truth, and on an unvalidated assumption that the LSTM latent space is a well-calibrated input for a squared-exponential GP. All dataset-specific constants (window size, smoothing, RUL change point, GP hyperparameters) are free parameters, and none are reported with enough detail to reproduce the experiment.

free parameters (6)
  • piecewise RUL change point = 125
    Labels RUL as constant 125 until 125 cycles before failure; taken from prior work (ref 41), but directly shapes every training label and hence the GP target.
  • exponential smoothing coefficient (beta or s) = not reported
    Controls how aggressively the sensor series is smoothed in Eq. (15); the value is not given in the paper.
  • sliding window size per sub-dataset = 25, 20, 30, 15 (FD001-FD004)
    Table 6 lists different window lengths per sub-dataset; the selection criterion is not shown to be training-data-only.
  • GP hyperparameters (length-scale eta, amplitude tau, noise variance delta^2) = not reported
    These determine the posterior mean and variance in Eqs. (7)-(9) and therefore the interval width; values are not given.
  • Huber loss threshold delta = not reported
    Appears in Eq. (2) but the numeric threshold is not specified.
  • LSTM hidden state size and training hyperparameters = not reported
    Hidden size m and all training details are absent, so the temporal feature extractor cannot be reproduced.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian process regression formulas (posterior mean and variance, Eqs. 5-9) are valid
    Used as textbook background; no derivation or modification supplied.
  • standard math The normal quantile interval yhat +/- 1.96*sqrt(k) is a valid 95% predictive interval for RUL
    Assumes the predictive distribution is Gaussian with known variance; the paper does not test this normality empirically.
  • domain assumption C-MAPSS simulation is a reliable proxy for real aeroengine degradation and the piecewise-linear RUL target is the correct ground truth
    The entire evaluation rests on this; invoked in Data preprocessing and Dataset description.
  • domain assumption The 14 selected sensors contain all information relevant to degradation
    Supplementary S2 discards 7 sensors as constant; no ablation is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper LSTM hidden states form a suitable input space for a stationary squared-exponential GP
    This is the core design choice of 'modified GPR' and is not justified beyond the empirical results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Gaussian Process Regression with Temporal Feature Extraction for Partially Interpretable Remaining Useful Life Interval Prediction in Aeroengine Prognostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56P2N37M

@misc{pith2026241115185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Gaussian Process Regression with Temporal Feature Extraction for Partially Interpretable Remaining Useful Life Interval Prediction in Aeroengine Prognostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56P2N37M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15185}
}
read the original abstract

The estimation of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) plays a pivotal role in intelligent manufacturing systems and Industry 4.0 technologies. While recent advancements have improved RUL prediction, many models still face interpretability and compelling uncertainty modeling challenges. This paper introduces a modified Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) model for RUL interval prediction, tailored for the complexities of manufacturing process development. The modified GPR predicts confidence intervals by learning from historical data and addresses uncertainty modeling in a more structured way. The approach effectively captures intricate time-series patterns and dynamic behaviors inherent in modern manufacturing systems by coupling GPR with deep adaptive learning-enhanced AI process models. Moreover, the model evaluates feature significance to ensure more transparent decision-making, which is crucial for optimizing manufacturing processes. This comprehensive approach supports more accurate RUL predictions and provides transparent, interpretable insights into uncertainty, contributing to robust process development and management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dual-line interval RUL prediction framework. Methods This section begins by formulating the multi-dimensional time series problem in RUL prediction. Then, an overview of our interval prediction framework is provided. The model is referred to using the acronym HRP. After that, we introduce the details of the model’s main elements. Problem definition Given run-to-failure data for several mechanical systems, denoted as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the network in our method HRP. based on the prediction intervals produced by modified GPR and the detailed feature analysis. This process allows for both predictive insights and interpretability, combining the power of advanced temporal modeling with the flexibility and uncertainty quantification of modified GPR. Data preprocessing We employ a four-step procedure to process the original dataset to en… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution and importance for sub-dataset FD001. Red dashed lines represent the density of testing datasets, and blue lines represent the density of training datasets. The lower figure shows the importance ranking of 14 features. KDE provides a non-parametric approach to estimating a random variable’s PDF. The default Gaussian kernel is used. The coincident density curves demonstrate strong consistency in the PDFs… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RUL prognostic performances of our algorithm for the testing engine units in four sub-datasets. The blue polyline represents the actual RUL. The range between the red curve and the green curve represents the predicted interval. The red segment indicates that the predic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Subroutines of the engine simulation. Supplementary Materials S1. C-MAPSS Dataset The subroutines of the engine simulation with ducts and bleed omitted is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the sliding window data segmentation. Sliding window process separates whole time dimension into equal length time window. Sliding window processing A transient approximation of the real values of the time series data is the sliding window. The window a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution and importance for sub-dataset FD002. Red dashed lines represent the density of testing datasets, and blue lines represent the density of training datasets. The lower figure shows the importance ranking of 14 features. 16/18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution and importance for sub-dataset FD003. Red dashed lines represent the density of testing datasets, and blue lines represent the density of training datasets. The lower figure shows the importance ranking of 14 features. 17/18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution and importance for sub-dataset FD004. Red dashed lines represent the density of testing datasets, and blue lines represent the density of training datasets. The lower figure shows the importance ranking of 14 features. 18/18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An lstm network for highway trajectory prediction

    Florent Altché and Arnaud de La Fortelle. An lstm network for highway trajectory prediction. In 2017 IEEE 20th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), pages 353–359. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    A prognostics approach to nuclear component degradation modeling based on gaussian process regression

    Piero Baraldi, Francesca Mangili, and Enrico Zio. A prognostics approach to nuclear component degradation modeling based on gaussian process regression. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 78:141–154, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    On the importance of temporal information for remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings using a random forest regressor

    Christoph Bienefeld, Eckhard Kirchner, Andreas V ogt, and Marian Kacmar. On the importance of temporal information for remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings using a random forest regressor. Lubricants, 10(4):67, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Random forests

    Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45:5–32, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Classification and regression trees

    Leo Breiman. Classification and regression trees. Routledge, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Life prediction for turbo- propulsion systems under dwell fatigue conditions

    Kwai S Chan, Michael P Enright, Jonathan P Moody, Benjamin Hocking, and Simeon HK Fitch. Life prediction for turbo- propulsion systems under dwell fatigue conditions. Journal of engineering for gas turbines and power, 134(12):122501, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Prediction interval estimation of aeroengine remaining useful life based on bidirectional long short-term memory network

    Chuang Chen, Ningyun Lu, Bin Jiang, Yin Xing, and Zheng Hong Zhu. Prediction interval estimation of aeroengine remaining useful life based on bidirectional long short-term memory network. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70:1–13, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Direct remaining useful life estimation based on random forest regression

    Xin Chen, Ge Jin, Siqi Qiu, Minglei Lu, and Danjiong Yu. Direct remaining useful life estimation based on random forest regression. In 2020 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management (PHM-Shanghai), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Machine remaining useful life prediction via an attention-based deep learning approach

    Zhenghua Chen, Min Wu, Rui Zhao, Feri Guretno, Ruqiang Yan, and Xiaoli Li. Machine remaining useful life prediction via an attention-based deep learning approach. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 68(3):2521–2531, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    A dual-stage attention-based bi-lstm network for multivariate time series prediction

    Qi Cheng, Yixin Chen, Yuteng Xiao, Hongsheng Yin, and Weidong Liu. A dual-stage attention-based bi-lstm network for multivariate time series prediction. The Journal of Supercomputing, 78(14):16214–16235, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Essential steps in prognostic health management

    Sreerupa Das, Richard Hall, Stefan Herzog, Gregory Harrison, Michael Bodkin, and Lockheed Martin. Essential steps in prognostic health management. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, pages 1–9. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Remaining useful life prediction and challenges: A literature review on the use of machine learning methods

    Carlos Ferreira and Gil Gonçalves. Remaining useful life prediction and challenges: A literature review on the use of machine learning methods. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 63:550–562, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A. J. Figueredo and P. S. A. Wolf. Assortative pairing and life history strategy – a cross-cultural study. Human Nature, 20:317–330, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    User’s guide for the commercial modular aero-propulsion system simulation (c-mapss)

    Dean K Frederick, Jonathan A DeCastro, and Jonathan S Litt. User’s guide for the commercial modular aero-propulsion system simulation (c-mapss). Technical report, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Z. Hao, A. AghaKouchak, N. Nakhjiri, and A Farahmand. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801, 2014

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Long short-term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  9. [17]

    Long short-term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Remaining useful life prognosis of bearing based on gauss process regression

    Sheng Hong and Zheng Zhou. Remaining useful life prognosis of bearing based on gauss process regression. In 2012 5th International conference on BioMedical engineering and informatics, pages 1575–1579. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Time series data prediction using sliding window based rbf neural network

    HS Hota, Richa Handa, and Akhilesh Kumar Shrivas. Time series data prediction using sliding window based rbf neural network. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research, 13(5):1145–1156, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Soh and rul prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on gaussian process regression with indirect health indicators

    Jianfang Jia, Jianyu Liang, Yuanhao Shi, Jie Wen, Xiaoqiong Pang, and Jianchao Zeng. Soh and rul prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on gaussian process regression with indirect health indicators. Energies, 13(2):375, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

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

    Yaguo Lei, Naipeng Li, Liang Guo, Ningbo Li, Tao Yan, and Jing Lin. Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to rul prediction. Mechanical systems and signal processing, 104:799–834, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    A wiener-process-model-based method for remaining useful life prediction considering unit-to-unit variability

    Naipeng Li, Yaguo Lei, Tao Yan, Ningbo Li, and Tianyu Han. A wiener-process-model-based method for remaining useful life prediction considering unit-to-unit variability. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 66(3):2092–2101, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Random forest regression for online capacity estimation of lithium-ion batteries

    Yi Li, Changfu Zou, Maitane Berecibar, Elise Nanini-Maury, Jonathan C-W Chan, Peter Van den Bossche, Joeri Van Mierlo, and Noshin Omar. Random forest regression for online capacity estimation of lithium-ion batteries. Applied energy, 232:197–210, 2018. 10/18

    2018

  16. [24]

    Uncertainty prediction of remaining useful life using long short-term memory network based on bootstrap method

    Yuan Liao, Linxuan Zhang, and Chongdang Liu. Uncertainty prediction of remaining useful life using long short-term memory network based on bootstrap method. In 2018 ieee international conference on prognostics and health management (icphm), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Multiple sensors based prognostics with prediction interval optimization via echo state gaussian process

    Chongdang Liu, Linxuan Zhang, Yuan Liao, Cheng Wu, and Gongzhuang Peng. Multiple sensors based prognostics with prediction interval optimization via echo state gaussian process. IEEE Access, 7:112397–112409, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    A novel deep learning-based encoder-decoder model for remaining useful life prediction

    Hui Liu, Zhenyu Liu, Weiqiang Jia, and Xianke Lin. A novel deep learning-based encoder-decoder model for remaining useful life prediction. In 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Uncertainty quantification and interval prediction of equipment remaining useful life based on semi-supervised learning

    Hui Liu, Zhenyu Liu, Donghao Zhang, Weiqiang Jia, Xiaopeng Xin, and Jianrong Tan. Uncertainty quantification and interval prediction of equipment remaining useful life based on semi-supervised learning. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on health indicator and gaussian process regression model

    Jian Liu and Ziqiang Chen. Remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on health indicator and gaussian process regression model. Ieee Access, 7:39474–39484, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Prediction of remaining useful life of multi-stage aero-engine based on clustering and lstm fusion

    Junqiang Liu, Fan Lei, Chunlu Pan, Dongbin Hu, and Hongfu Zuo. Prediction of remaining useful life of multi-stage aero-engine based on clustering and lstm fusion. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 214:107807, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Gaussian process regression with automatic relevance determination kernel for calendar aging prediction of lithium-ion batteries

    Kailong Liu, Yi Li, Xiaosong Hu, Mattin Lucu, and Widanalage Dhammika Widanage. Gaussian process regression with automatic relevance determination kernel for calendar aging prediction of lithium-ion batteries. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 16(6):3767–3777, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Aircraft engine remaining useful life estimation via a double attention-based data-driven architecture

    Lu Liu, Xiao Song, and Zhetao Zhou. Aircraft engine remaining useful life estimation via a double attention-based data-driven architecture. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 221:108330, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Deep-convolution-based lstm network for remaining useful life prediction

    Meng Ma and Zhu Mao. Deep-convolution-based lstm network for remaining useful life prediction. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(3):1658–1667, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Evolutionary neural architecture search for remaining useful life prediction

    Hyunho Mo, Leonardo Lucio Custode, and Giovanni Iacca. Evolutionary neural architecture search for remaining useful life prediction. Applied Soft Computing, 108:107474, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Stock market’s price movement prediction with lstm neural networks

    David MQ Nelson, Adriano CM Pereira, and Renato A De Oliveira. Stock market’s price movement prediction with lstm neural networks. In 2017 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pages 1419–1426. Ieee, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    A lithium-ion battery remaining useful life prediction method based on the incremental capacity analysis and gaussian process regression

    Xiaoqiong Pang, Xiaoyan Liu, Jianfang Jia, Jie Wen, Yuanhao Shi, Jianchao Zeng, and Zhen Zhao. A lithium-ion battery remaining useful life prediction method based on the incremental capacity analysis and gaussian process regression. Microelectronics Reliability, 127:114405, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    An interval prediction approach based on fuzzy information granulation and linguistic description for remaining useful life of lithium- ion batteries

    Xiaoqiong Pang, Zhen Zhao, Jie Wen, Jianfang Jia, Yuanhao Shi, Jianchao Zeng, and Yuanchang Dong. An interval prediction approach based on fuzzy information granulation and linguistic description for remaining useful life of lithium- ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources, 54...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Remaining useful life (rul) prediction of rolling element bearing using random forest and gradient boosting technique

    Sangram Patil, Aum Patil, Vishwadeep Handikherkar, Sumit Desai, Vikas M Phalle, and Faruk S Kazi. Remaining useful life (rul) prediction of rolling element bearing using random forest and gradient boosting technique. In ASME international mechanical engineering congress and ex...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Gaussian process regression for forecasting battery state of health

    Robert R Richardson, Michael A Osborne, and David A Howey. Gaussian process regression for forecasting battery state of health. Journal of Power Sources, 357:209–219, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

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

    Abhinav Saxena, Kai Goebel, Don Simon, and Neil Eklund. Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. In 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management, pages 1–9. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    A tutorial on gaussian process regression: Modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions

    Eric Schulz, Maarten Speekenbrink, and Andreas Krause. A tutorial on gaussian process regression: Modelling, exploring, and exploiting functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 85:1–16, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    A dual attention lstm lightweight model based on exponential smoothing for remaining useful life prediction

    Jiayu Shi, Jingshu Zhong, Yuxuan Zhang, Bin Xiao, Lei Xiao, and Yu Zheng. A dual attention lstm lightweight model based on exponential smoothing for remaining useful life prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 243:109821, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    A dual-lstm framework combining change point detection and remaining useful life prediction

    Zunya Shi and Abdallah Chehade. A dual-lstm framework combining change point detection and remaining useful life prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 205:107257, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    The improvement of remaining useful life prediction for aero-engines by classification and deep learning

    Junxuan Tang and Lei Xiao. The improvement of remaining useful life prediction for aero-engines by classification and deep learning. In 2020 11th International Conference on Prognostics and System Health Management (PHM-2020 Jinan), pages 130–136. IEEE, 2020. 11/18

    2020

  36. [44]

    Remaining useful life (rul) prediction of bearing by using regression model and principal component analysis (pca) technique

    Apakrita Tayade, Sangram Patil, Vikas Phalle, Faruk Kazi, and Satvasheel Powar. Remaining useful life (rul) prediction of bearing by using regression model and principal component analysis (pca) technique. Vibroengineering Procedia, 23:30–36, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Adaptive sliding window lstm nn based rul prediction for lithium-ion batteries integrating ltsa feature reconstruction

    Zhuqing Wang, Ning Liu, and Yangming Guo. Adaptive sliding window lstm nn based rul prediction for lithium-ion batteries integrating ltsa feature reconstruction. Neurocomputing, 466:178–189, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Multicellular lstm-based deep learning model for aero-engine remaining useful life prediction

    Sheng Xiang, Yi Qin, Jun Luo, Huayan Pu, and Baoping Tang. Multicellular lstm-based deep learning model for aero-engine remaining useful life prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 216:107927, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Multiple sensor data fusion for degradation modeling and prognostics under multiple operational conditions

    Hao Yan, Kaibo Liu, Xi Zhang, and Jianjun Shi. Multiple sensor data fusion for degradation modeling and prognostics under multiple operational conditions. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 65(3):1416–1426, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    A machine-learning prediction method of lithium-ion battery life based on charge process for different applications

    Yixin Yang. A machine-learning prediction method of lithium-ion battery life based on charge process for different applications. Applied Energy, 292:116897, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Remaining useful life estimation using a bidirectional recurrent neural network based autoencoder scheme

    Wennian Yu, II Yong Kim, and Chris Mechefske. Remaining useful life estimation using a bidirectional recurrent neural network based autoencoder scheme. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 129:764–780, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    An integrated multi-head dual sparse self-attention network for remaining useful life prediction

    Jiusi Zhang, Xiang Li, Jilun Tian, Hao Luo, and Shen Yin. An integrated multi-head dual sparse self-attention network for remaining useful life prediction. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 233:109096, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Remaining useful life prediction for lithium-ion batteries based on exponential model and particle filter

    Lijun Zhang, Zhongqiang Mu, and Changyan Sun. Remaining useful life prediction for lithium-ion batteries based on exponential model and particle filter. Ieee Access, 6:17729–17740, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    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 2017 IEEE international conference on prognostics and health management (ICPHM), pages 88–95. IEEE, 2017. Acknowledgments This study was parti...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.