A Generalized Classification Framework with Simultaneous Feature Weighting and Selection Using Antlion Optimization Algorithm
Source abstract
Abstract
The use of machine-learning based algorithms on a large-scale nondestructive evaluation (NDE) data considerably advances the NDE techniques toward complete industrial automation. In this article, simultaneous feature selection and feature weighting are carried out on the magnetic Barkhausen emission (MBE) dataset to demonstrate the significance of optimization in NDE data. Antlion optimization is employed as a searching method to determine the optimum feature set that will maximize the classification performance. The proposed framework is validated for different magnetization frequencies separately and found to be frequency independent. The framework resulted in the selection of four significant features extracted from the MBE response thereby reducing the computational effort and improving the accuracy to 98.4% for AdaBoost classifier. The developed machine learning methodology is a potential strategy for processing industrial sensory data since material testing, property prediction, and categorization are frequent tasks in manufacturing and production engineering industries. Further, this research demonstrated the necessity of embedded intelligence in automation of NDE toward Industrial Revolution 4.0.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Grey System Theory Applications · Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centre for Automation and Robotics, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai, INDIA
Funding
no specific
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.02.02510.1016/j.jksuci.2022.02.025 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.04510.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.045 ↗
3. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.294591110.1109/ACCESS.2019.2945911 ↗
4. 10.1177/016555151561322610.1177/0165551515613226 ↗
5. 10.1177/016555151663878410.1177/0165551516638784 ↗
6. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.304973410.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049734 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ipm.2017.02.00810.1016/j.ipm.2017.02.008 ↗
8. 10.1063/1.503151910.1063/1.5031519 ↗
9. 10.1007/978-3-030-48200-8_28-210.1007/978-3-030-48200-8_28-2 ↗
10. 10.1016/0001-6160(87)90096-410.1016/0001-6160(87)90096-4 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00295-810.1016/S0921-5093(03)00295-8 ↗
12. 10.1080/0934984070163527810.1080/09349840701635278 ↗
13. 10.1088/1742-6596/450/1/01204110.1088/1742-6596/450/1/012041 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2022.16945410.1016/j.jmmm.2022.169454 ↗
15. 10.1109/20.49039310.1109/20.490393 ↗
16. J. Decitre et al., in Detection of burning area in Ferromagnetic Material by Eddy Current, Barkhausen noise and multi technical 3MA methods. 12th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (ECNDT 2018). (Gothenburg, 2018), p. 11–15.
17. J. S. Ceurter, C. Smith, and R. Ott, Adv. Mater. Process. 160, 29–31 (2002)
18. 10.1121/1.39520910.1121/1.395209 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.06.00710.1016/j.ndteint.2009.06.007 ↗
20. 10.31399/asm.hb.v17.a000647610.31399/asm.hb.v17.a0006476 ↗
21. 10.1109/20.48984810.1109/20.489848 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.35354110.1063/1.353541 ↗
23. 10.1023/A:102284612846110.1023/A:1022846128461 ↗
24. 10.1109/TMAG.2014.233520410.1109/TMAG.2014.2335204 ↗
25. 10.1080/1058975080227598010.1080/10589750802275980 ↗
26. J. Pal’a et al., J. Electr. Eng. 59, 58–61 (2008)
27. 10.1007/s12666-020-01914-y10.1007/s12666-020-01914-y ↗
28. 10.1016/S1359-6454(98)00205-510.1016/S1359-6454(98)00205-5 ↗
29. 10.2355/isijinternational.44.103310.2355/isijinternational.44.1033 ↗
30. 10.12693/APhysPolA.137.63710.12693/APhysPolA.137.637 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2004.07.00610.1016/j.ndteint.2004.07.006 ↗
32. 10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00070-110.1016/S0963-8695(02)00070-1 ↗
33. 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000013898.83897.5510.1023/B:JMSC.0000013898.83897.55 ↗
34. 10.1007/s10921-007-0022-010.1007/s10921-007-0022-0 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2017.11.04110.1016/j.jmmm.2017.11.041 ↗
36. 10.1063/1.486496510.1063/1.4864965 ↗
37. 10.1063/1.486619510.1063/1.4866195 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.10.00210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.10.002 ↗
39. 10.1016/S0925-8388(00)00963-410.1016/S0925-8388(00)00963-4 ↗
40. 10.3390/s1906144310.3390/s19061443 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.10.01310.1016/j.patrec.2009.10.013 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2015.06.00810.1016/j.jmmm.2015.06.008 ↗
43. 10.1007/978-3-642-04921-7_2210.1007/978-3-642-04921-7_22 ↗
44. 10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.0177710.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.01777 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ins.2013.02.04110.1016/j.ins.2013.02.041 ↗
46. 10.1155/2018/279376210.1155/2018/2793762 ↗
47. 10.1162/10645460232018420210.1162/106454602320184202 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.01010.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010 ↗
49. 10.11591/ijece.v10i2.pp1187-119910.11591/ijece.v10i2.pp1187-1199 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.jesit.2017.06.00110.1016/j.jesit.2017.06.001 ↗
51. 10.1109/ICoCS.2015.748331710.1109/ICoCS.2015.7483317 ↗
52. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.299033810.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990338 ↗
53. 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i10/8899510.17485/ijst/2016/v9i10/88995 ↗
54. 10.1016/0001-6160(53)90006-610.1016/0001-6160(53)90006-6 ↗
55. 10.1063/1.11795110.1063/1.117951 ↗
56. H. P. Klug and L. E. Alexander, X-Ray Diffraction Procedures: For Polycrystalline and Amorphous Materials, 2nd, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974), p. 992
57. 10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00572-z10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00572-z ↗
58. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2022.11476810.1016/j.scriptamat.2022.114768 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.actamat.2021.11737810.1016/j.actamat.2021.117378 ↗
60. 10.1007/s10853-019-04284-z10.1007/s10853-019-04284-z ↗
61. 10.1063/5.008819410.1063/5.0088194 ↗
62. 10.1115/1.405599210.1115/1.4055992 ↗
63. 10.1063/5.010233710.1063/5.0102337 ↗