mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Federated learning framework for collaborative remaining useful life prognostics: an aircraft engine case study

arXiv 2506.00499 ↗First posted 31 May 2025cs.LG cs.DC cs.ETcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Complex systems such as aircraft engines are continuously monitored by sensors. In predictive aircraft maintenance, the collected sensor measurements are used to estimate the health condition and the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of such systems. However, a major challenge when developing prognostics is the limited number of run-to-failure data samples. This challenge could be overcome if multiple airlines would share their run-to-failure data samples such that sufficient learning can be achieved. Due to privacy concerns, however, airlines are reluctant to share their data in a centralized setting. In this paper, a collaborative federated learning framework is therefore developed instead. Here, several airlines cooperate to train a collective RUL prognostic machine learning model, without the need to centrally share their data. For this, a decentralized validation procedure is proposed to validate the prognostics model without sharing any data. Moreover, sensor data is often noisy and of low quality. This paper therefore proposes four novel methods to aggregate the parameters of the global prognostic model. These methods enhance the robustness of the FL framework against noisy data. The proposed framework is illustrated for training a collaborative RUL prognostic model for aircraft engines, using the N-CMAPSS dataset. Here, six airlines are considered, that collaborate in the FL framework to train a collective RUL prognostic model for their aircraft's engines. When comparing the proposed FL framework with the case where each airline independently develops their own prognostic model, the results show that FL leads to more accurate RUL prognostics for five out of the six airlines. Moreover, the novel robust aggregation methods render the FL framework robust to noisy data samples.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2025.

Builds on

16 of 50 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,669
  2. 2018Federated Optimization in Heterogeneous Networkscited by 2,987
  3. 2019Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 1,021
  4. 2020Inverting Gradients -- How easy is it to break privacy in federated learning?cited by 712
  5. 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 711
  6. 2019Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learningcited by 493
  7. 2018Analyzing Federated Learning through an Adversarial Lenscited by 351
  8. 2020Salvaging Federated Learning by Local Adaptationcited by 142
  9. 2018Generalized Byzantine-tolerant SGDcited by 95
  10. 2020Potential, Challenges and Future Directions for Deep Learning in Prognostics and Health Management Applicationscited by 64
  11. 2018Learning Private Neural Language Modeling with Attentive Aggregationcited by 49
  12. 2020Fusing Physics-based and Deep Learning Models for Prognosticscited by 40
4 more
  1. 2021A Federated Learning Aggregation Algorithm for Pervasive Computing: Evaluation and Comparisoncited by 31
  2. 2021FedAdapt: Adaptive Offloading for IoT Devices in Federated Learningcited by 26
  3. 2019Contamination Attacks and Mitigation in Multi-Party Machine Learningcited by 13
  4. 2023Federated Learning with Uncertainty-Based Client Clustering for Fleet-Wide Fault Diagnosiscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.