2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference 2015
DOI: 10.1109/aero.2015.7119275
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Random forests for industrial device functioning diagnostics using wireless sensor networks

Abstract: In this paper, random forests are proposed for operating devices diagnostics in the presence of a variable number of features. In various contexts, like large or difficult-to-access monitored areas, wired sensor networks providing features to achieve diagnostics are either very costly to use or totally impossible to spread out. Using a wireless sensor network can solve this problem, but this latter is more subjected to flaws. Furthermore, the networks' topology often changes, leading to a variability in qualit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This type of decision is not yet sufficiently developed in the literature. However, there are some works that were proposed in specific contexts, including production scheduling [1], sensors network management [16], battery management [31] and the management of autonomous vehicles [37].…”
Section: Missions Reconfigurationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This type of decision is not yet sufficiently developed in the literature. However, there are some works that were proposed in specific contexts, including production scheduling [1], sensors network management [16], battery management [31] and the management of autonomous vehicles [37].…”
Section: Missions Reconfigurationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each point in this figure is an average of error rates of a given algorithm on 20 simulations (for a certain t). As shown in the figure, during t = 0 | t = 40 (if 0 ≤ t ≤ 40), each algorithm has a specific error interval (in %) as follows: [14,20] for SVM, [7,10] for NB, [7,12] for RF, [2,6] for GTB, [4,8] for TBFS, and [12,17] for NN. After that (if t > 40) the error rate for each algorithm increased significantly at these intervals to reach at t = 50, 40 % for SVM, 20 % for NB, 16 % for RF, 30 % for GTB, 18 % for TBFS, and 36 % for NN.…”
Section: B Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, in order to keep connectivity, each sensor will then communicate with the closest active node in the distribution layer as shown in Figure 6b. , each algorithm has a specific error interval (in %) as follows: [15,18] for SVM, [8,10] for NB, [8,12] for RF, [4,6] for GTB, [4,8] for TBFS, and [12,15] for NN. These intervals are approximately the same where the topology is distributed (where the whole network is active), and this is because in these two topologies, there is no data aggregation as the decentralized topology.…”
Section: B Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This general discussion emphasizes that Random Forests should be considered in the context of PHM based on wireless sensor networks data [10], and that, due to their robustness and accuracy, they are real alternatives to state-of-the-art PHM algorithms. To illustrate this point by an experimental comparison between random forests and algorithms usually used for diagnosis such as Adaboost and SVM, a new series of simulations will be conducted in the section below.…”
Section: General Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%