Statistically based metrics, incorporating operating costs, for gas turbine engine diagnostic systems are required to evaluate competing products fairly and to establish a convincing business case. Diagnostic algorithm validation often includes engine testing with implanted faults. The implantation rate is rarely, if ever, representative of the true fault occurrence rate and the sample size is very small. Costs related to diagnostic outcomes have a significant effect on the utility of a given algorithm and need to be incorporated into the assessment. Techniques for assessing diagnostics are drawn from the literature and modified for application to gas turbine applications. The techniques are modified with computational experiments and the application demonstrated through examples. New techniques are compared to the traditional methods and the advantages presented. A technique is presented to convert a confusion matrix with a non-representative fault distribution to one representative of the expected distribution. The small sample size associated with fault implantation studies requires a confidence interval on the results to provide valid comparisons and a method for calculating confidence intervals, including on zero entries, is presented. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves evaluate diagnostic system performance across a range of threshold settings. This allows an algorithm’s ability to be assessed over a range of possible usage. Cost curves are analogous to ROC curves but offer several advantages. The techniques for applying cost curves to diagnostic algorithms are presented and their advantages over ROC curves are outlined. This paper provides techniques for more informed comparison of diagnostic algorithms, possibly preventing incorrect assessment due to small sample sizes.

1.
Davison
,
C. R.
, and
Bird
,
J. W.
, 2008, “
Review of Metrics and Assignment of Confidence Intervals for Health Management of Gas Turbine Engines
,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50849.
2.
Simon
,
D. L.
,
Bird
,
J. W.
,
Davison
,
C. R.
,
Volponi
,
A.
, and
Iverson
,
R. E.
, 2008, “
Benchmarking Gas Path Diagnostic Methods: A Public Approach
,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-51360.
3.
DePold
,
H.
,
Siegel
,
J.
, and
Hull
,
J.
, 2004, “
Metrics for Evaluating the Accuracy of Diagnostic Fault Detection Systems
,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-54144.
4.
Webb
,
G. I.
, and
Ting
,
K. M.
, 2005, “
On the Application of ROC Analysis to Predict Classification Performance Under Varying Class Distributions
,”
Mach. Learn.
0885-6125,
58
(
1
), pp.
25
32
.
5.
Drummond
,
C.
, and
Holte
,
R. C.
, 2000, “
Explicitly Representing Expected Cost: An Alternative to ROC Representation
,”
Proceedings of KDD-2000, Sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
, Boston, MA, Aug. 20–23, pp.
198
207
.
6.
Drummond
,
C.
, and
Holte
,
R. C.
, 2006, “
Cost Curves: An Improved Method for Visualizing Classifier Performance
,”
Mach. Learn.
0885-6125,
65
(
1
), pp.
95
130
.
7.
Davison
,
A. C.
, and
Hinkley
,
D. V.
, 1997,
Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications
,
Cambridge University
,
Cambridge, UK
.
8.
Orsagh
,
R. F.
,
Roemer
,
M. J.
,
Savage
,
C. J.
, and
Lebold
,
M.
, 2002, “
Development of Performance and Effectiveness Metrics for Gas Turbine Diagnostic Techniques
,”
IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings
, Vol.
6
, pp.
2825
2834
.
9.
Osborn
,
M.
, and
Yu
,
L. J.
, 2007, “
Decision Support for Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics of Aircraft Engine Using Influence Diagrams
,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-28331.
10.
McDonald
,
R. A.
, 2006, “
The Mean Subjective Utility Score, a Novel Metric for Cost-Sensitive Classifier Evaluation
,”
Pattern Recogn. Lett.
0167-8655,
27
, pp.
1472
1477
.
11.
Margineantu
,
D. D.
, and
Dietterich
,
T. G.
, 2000, “
Bootstrap Methods for the Cost-Sensitive Evaluation of Classifiers
,”
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning
, pp.
582
590
.
12.
Dugas
,
C.
, and
Gadoury
,
D.
, 2008, “
Positive Exact Distributions of Cost Curves
,”
Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning
, Helsinki, Finland.
You do not currently have access to this content.