Intelligent Multi-Fault Diagnosis for a Simplified Aircraft Fuel System

Machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly used to diagnose faults in aerospace applications, but diagnosing multiple faults in aircraft fuel systems (AFSs) remains challenging due to complex component interactions. This paper evaluates the accuracy and introduces an innovative approach to quantify and compare the interpretability of four ML classification methods—artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector machines (SVMs), decision trees (DTs), and logistic regressions (LRs)—for diagnosing fault combinations present in AFSs. While the ANN achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy at 90%, surpassing other methods, its interpretability was limited. By contrast, the decision tree model showed an 82% consistency between global explanations and engineering insights, highlighting its advantage in interpretability despite the lower accuracy. Interpretability was assessed using two widely accepted tools, LIME and SHAP, alongside engineering understanding. These findings underscore a trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability, which is critical for trust in ML applications in aerospace. Although an ANN can deliver high diagnostic accuracy, a decision tree offers more transparent results, facilitating better alignment with engineering expectations even at a slight cost to accuracy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Algorithms
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/a18020073
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Fault Detection and Control Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.86
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Intelligent Multi-Fault Diagnosis for a Simplified Aircraft Fuel System

Jiajin Li, Stephen King, Ian Jennions
4 citations
Algorithms
Fault Detection and Control Systems
4.86
article

Intelligent Multi-Fault Diagnosis for a Simplified Aircraft Fuel System

Jiajin Li, Stephen King, Ian Jennions
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly used to diagnose faults in aerospace applications, but diagnosing multiple faults in aircraft fuel systems (AFSs) remains challenging due to complex component interactions. This paper evaluates the accuracy and introduces an innovative approach to quantify and compare the interpretability of four ML classification methods—artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector machines (SVMs), decision trees (DTs), and logistic regressions (LRs)—for diagnosing fault combinations present in AFSs. While the ANN achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy at 90%, surpassing other methods, its interpretability was limited. By contrast, the decision tree model showed an 82% consistency between global explanations and engineering insights, highlighting its advantage in interpretability despite the lower accuracy. Interpretability was assessed using two widely accepted tools, LIME and SHAP, alongside engineering understanding. These findings underscore a trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability, which is critical for trust in ML applications in aerospace. Although an ANN can deliver high diagnostic accuracy, a decision tree offers more transparent results, facilitating better alignment with engineering expectations even at a slight cost to accuracy.

AlgorithmsVol. 18(2)
Cranfield University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Fault Detection and Control Systems
4.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Intelligent Multi-Fault Diagnosis for a Simplified Aircraft Fuel System — Jiajin Li, Stephen King, et al. · Algorithms (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS