ArticleScientific reports2025
Fault-class coverage-aligned combined training for AFDD of AHUs across multiple buildings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hybrid evolutionary-gradient training improves long-term time series forecasting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning–based Automated Fault Detection and Diagnosis (AFDD) for Air Handling Units (AHUs) has often performed well. However, most prior studies relied on single-building datasets and fixed feature schemas, limiting applicability to new sites. This study evaluated TabTransformer and TabNet on a unified multi-building dataset pooling auditorium, hospital, and office data to examine coverage-aligned combined training across buildings. Extensive hyperparameter optimization covering 3240 models and systematic analyses were performed, including checks for underfitting and overfitting, assessment of validation–test variation, best-model selection, attention heatmaps, and comparisons with non-attention baselines. The optimized TabNet trained on unified data achieved, for the auditorium, an F1 score of 97.43% and an accuracy of 97.91%; for the hospital, an F1 score of 92.01% and an accuracy of 92.50%; and for the office, an F1 score of 92.25% and an accuracy of 92.46%. Single-building TabNet baselines reached 96.82% F1 and 97.37% accuracy for the auditorium, 95.40% F1 and 97.21% accuracy for the hospital, and 96.27% F1 and 97.29% accuracy for the office. Across all three buildings, gains from combined training arose primarily under strong coverage alignment of fault classes between the training and target sets; when alignment was weak, the gains diminished.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.