Research Article

Coverage of deep remaining useful life prediction intervals under C MAPSS cross subset transfer

Authors

  • David R Harrison * Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
  • Aisha B Saleh College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
  • Vikram Iyengar Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India.
  • Lea Hoffmann CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Saarbrucken, Germany.

https://doi.org/10.48313/uda.v3i4.116

Downloads

Abstract

Conformal prediction intervals require a calibration–deployment relationship that can fail when a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) model transfers between operating conditions or fault modes. This study compares seven interval strategies on three compact backbones across all twelve ordered transfers among the four public Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation (C-MAPSS) subsets, giving thirty-six transfer blocks. The reported pooled split-conformal coverage decreases from 0.918 in-domain to 0.606 under transfer, with a minimum of 0.083. Density-Ratio-Weighted Calibration (PORTCAL) has mean coverage 0.589 and Winkler score 358.2 cycles, compared with 0.606 and 347.7 for pooled calibration. A feedback-based, clipped Adaptive Conformal Inference (ACI) implementation has the lowest reported mean Winkler score, 221.1, with coverage 0.755 and width 74.8 cycles. MC-dropout and ensembles have higher transfer coverage than offline conformal variants but remain below the nominal 0.90. These observations concern a simulated benchmark and the specific implementations. Clipping in ACI, estimated and capped weights, dependent trajectory windows and immediate retrospective RUL feedback limit theoretical and deployment interpretations. The results support separate reporting of in-domain and transfer coverage, accompanied by interval width and an explicit information contract.

Keywords

Remaining useful life Conformal prediction Distribution shift Uncertainty quantification Predictive maintenance Commercial modular aero-propulsion system simulation Coverage audit
References (13)
  1. [1] Li, X., Ding, Q., & Sun, J. Q. (2018). Remaining useful life estimation in prognostics using deep convolution neural networks. Reliability engineering & system safety, 172, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.021
  2. [2] Zhang, Z., Song, W., & Li, Q. (2022). Dual-aspect self-attention based on transformer for remaining useful life prediction. IEEE transactions on instrumentation and measurement, 71, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2022.3160561
  3. [3] Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., & Eklund, N. (2008). Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management (pp. 1–9). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PHM.2008.4711414
  4. [4] NASA Prognostics Center of Excellence (PCoE). (2025). CMAPSS Jet engine simulated data. https://data.nasa.gov/dataset/cmapss-jet-engine-simulated-data
  5. [5] Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2016). Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. International conference on machine learning (pp. 1050–1059). Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v48/gal16.html?trk=public_post_comment-text

Article Metrics

How to Cite

Harrison, D. R., Saleh, A. B., Iyengar, V., & Hoffmann, L. (2026). Coverage of deep remaining useful life prediction intervals under C MAPSS cross subset transfer. Uncertainty Discourse and Applications, 3(4), 296-306. https://doi.org/10.48313/uda.v3i4.116

Similar Articles

1-10 of 71

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.