Resource-Aware Model Comparison for DASHlink Multi-Class Flight-Anomaly Screening
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Flight-data prognostics and health management models have to do more than rank anomalous windows correctly. For future edge or onboard validation, a screening model also has to be compact, fast to score, false-alarm aware, and interpretable enough that its decision statistic can be trusted. Autoencoders are attractive in this setting because they can be trained from nominal data, but a single scalar reconstruction error may be too coarse to separate operationally different non-nominal approach behaviors. We tested that tradeoff on the NASA DASHlink multi-class flight-anomaly window benchmark using a fixed split, nominal-only threshold calibration, and a held-out test set. Each sample is a 160-second, 20-variable window labeled as Nominal, Speed High, Path High, or Flaps Late Setting. We treat the primary task as nominal-versus-non-nominal screening, while preserving class-wise recall so that the rare classes are not hidden by aggregate recall. The comparison includes raw-summary classifiers, classical unsupervised baselines, scalar convolutional variational autoencoder (CVAE) reconstruction scores, CVAE residual and latent representations, and raw-plus-CVAE hybrid models. Thresholded metrics use a nominal-calibrated p95 operating point; resource proxies include total scoring time and serialized pipeline size. Scalar CVAE reconstruction error was weak as a standalone detector, with AP 0.179 and worst-class recall 0.051. Residual and latent CVAE features retained substantially more class-discriminative information, and the strongest raw-plus-CVAE hybrid reached AP 0.935, recall 0.945, and worst-class recall 0.894 at 0.158 ms/window. Full-20 raw-summary HGB remained the simpler high-performing baseline. The practical result is that compact feature-based models are strong screening baselines, while reconstruction models are most useful here as auxiliary representation generators rather than standalone scalar anomaly detectors.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
prognostics and health management; flight data monitoring; anomaly detection; DASHlink; variational autoencoder; resource-aware machine learning; onboard anomaly screening
Davis, J., & Goadrich, M. (2006). The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143874
Dudukcu, H. V., Taşkıran, M., & Kahraman, N. (2025). AnoSense: Edge computing for real-time flight anomaly detection by using embedded deep neural networks. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(3), 797-808. https://doi.org/10.17714/gumusfenbil.1676270
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189-1232.
Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2014). Auto-encoding variational Bayes. International Conference on Learning Representations.
Memarzadeh, M., Matthews, B., & Avrekh, I. (2020). Unsupervised anomaly detection in flight data using convolutional variational auto-encoder. Aerospace, 7(8), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7080115
Memarzadeh, M., Matthews, B., & Templin, T. (2022). Multiclass anomaly detection in flight data using semi-supervised explainable deep learning model. Journal of Aerospace Info rmation Systems, 19(2), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.I010959
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (n.d.). Sample Flight Data - DASHlink. NASA DASHlink Collaborative Sharing Network. Retrieved June 18, 2026, from https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/dashlink/projects/85/
Reddy, K. K., Sarkar, S., Venugopalan, V., & Giering, M. (2016). Anomaly detection and fault disambiguation in large flight data: A multi-modal deep auto-encoder approach. Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society.
Schwabacher, M., & Goebel, K. F. (2007). A survey of artificial intelligence for prognostics. Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, VA.
Vachtsevanos, G., Lewis, F. L., Roemer, M., Hess, A., & Wu, B. (2006). Intelligent fault diagnosis and prognosis for engineering systems. John Wiley & Sons.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The Prognostic and Health Management Society advocates open-access to scientific data and uses a Creative Commons license for publishing and distributing any papers. A Creative Commons license does not relinquish the author’s copyright; rather it allows them to share some of their rights with any member of the public under certain conditions whilst enjoying full legal protection. By submitting an article to the International Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, the authors agree to be bound by the associated terms and conditions including the following:
As the author, you retain the copyright to your Work. By submitting your Work, you are granting anybody the right to copy, distribute and transmit your Work and to adapt your Work with proper attribution under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States license. You assign rights to the Prognostics and Health Management Society to publish and disseminate your Work through electronic and print media if it is accepted for publication. A license note citing the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License as shown below needs to be placed in the footnote on the first page of the article.
First Author et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.