Long-Horizon Transformer–Quantile Fault Prediction for Multi-Site Industrial Predictive Maintenance.

Most PdM systems reported in the literature are either short-horizon, evaluated on benchmark datasets, or designed around individual assets rather than multi-site industrial deployments [6, 7, 9, 11]. This distinction is operationally significant. A satellite facility network—several geographically separated plants operated by one organisation and producing the same product family—is a common structure in high-volume discrete manufacturing, and it changes what a maintenance forecast is for. In a single-site setting, a fault warning triggers a local repair decision. In a satellite network, the same warning is an input to a fleet-level scheduling problem: which plant absorbs demand while another is down, when shared spare-part inventory should be repositioned, and how maintenance windows are sequenced so that aggregate output is preserved. These decisions are taken on procurement and production-planning timescales of weeks, which is precisely why a 30-day horizon—rather than an hour-ahead alarm—is the operationally binding quantity here. Reviews of industrial PdM adoption consistently identify this gap between asset-level detection and fleet-level planning as a barrier to realizing the promised benefits [10, 13, 7].

Three difficulties intensify as the horizon extends from hours to weeks, and each is documented in the prior literature rather than assumed here. First, incipient degradation is expressed as gradual distributional change—variance growth, tail movement, and envelope widening—rather than as large point anomalies, so detectors tuned to threshold breaches lose sensitivity at long lead times [19, 21, 14]. Second, heterogeneous sensor groups sampled at incompatible rates must be fused causally, and naive resampling or window-overlapping evaluation is a well-documented source of optimistic bias in industrial time-series studies [21, 20]. Third, long windows increase exposure to regime transitions driven by wear progression, lubrication change, thermal cycling, tooling drift, and material changeover, so the mapping from sensor state to fault probability is itself non-stationary [12, 14]. Recurrent and attention-based classifiers model sequential structure well but do not, by construction, preserve distributional or uncertainty information, nor separate sustained degradation-like divergence from isolated transients.

Long-horizon prediction has an established literature, and the contribution of this paper is best understood against it rather than against short-horizon work alone. Multi-horizon forecasting architectures such as the Temporal Fusion Transformer [18] and long-range spatiotemporal transformers [16] explicitly target extended horizons, and probabilistic RUL prognostics [12] and multi-scale degradation models [11] forecast weeks or cycles ahead. Three limitations, however, recur. (i) Most long-horizon work targets regression onto a degradation index or RUL, which presupposes a monotone health indicator and run-to-failure trajectories; in a live production fleet, assets are repaired before failure and such trajectories are largely unavailable. (ii) Long-horizon evaluations are frequently conducted on benchmark corpora with a single asset type and a fixed operating regime, so robustness to cross-site regime variation is untested [6, 9]. (iii) Where uncertainty is modelled, it is usually reported as an output interval rather than exploited as an input representation for a downstream decision. The present work addresses a task of the third kind: it retains a distributional description of the input, but targets a decision-relevant binary event within a planning window, under multi-site regime variation. These studies motivate comparison with long-horizon and uncertainty-aware baselines, but their numerical results are not treated as directly comparable cross-study evidence because the datasets, targets, and validation protocols differ.

This paper presents the Transformer Quantile Regression Neural Network for 30-day horizons (TQRNN_30d), a long-horizon framework for industrial fault-occurrence forecasting. The primary evaluated task is supervised Normal/Abnormal forecasting: given a completed 30-day observation document ending at reference time $t_{0}$, predict whether at least one confirmed fault event occurs within a future horizon $H\in\{7,14,30\}$ days. Internally, the classifier preserves hourly forecast- interval structure over the selected horizon; the headline classification metrics reported here are horizon-level decisions derived from that structured output. The task is therefore distinct from direct RUL regression or degradation-index regression.

The model converts multi-rate machine data into hourly word and document representations (Section III) and extends the earlier TQRNN and TQRNN_70h stages [8] by increasing the long-horizon sensing interface to 81 physical channels and using a multi-stream Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) classifier with an auxiliary instability-aware memory-modulation pathway. Throughout, QRNN denotes a quantile-regression neural network, MLP a multilayer perceptron, GRN a gated residual network, GRU a gated recurrent unit, and PLC a programmable logic controller.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section II summarises related work. Section III describes the industrial dataset and temporal representation. Section IV presents the proposed framework. Section V defines the experimental setup. Section VI reports the results, and Section VII concludes the paper.

Data-driven PdM has moved from rule-based condition monitoring toward statistical, machine-learning, and deep-learning methods that infer degradation from historical and real-time sensor streams [6, 9], as part of the broader Industry 4.0 transition [10] and supported by systematic reviews of fault-diagnosis and prognosis techniques [11]. Recurrent and long short-term memory models are common because they model sequential dependencies in degradation data [13, 12]. However, many applications remain asset-specific or short-horizon, and reported gains on public benchmarks do not always translate to industrial deployments where machines, sites, materials, and operating regimes vary. Hybrid architectures such as CNN–LSTM models have likewise been applied to joint production and imperfect-maintenance planning [23], but they are evaluated at a single short operating horizon and offer no analysis of how predictive performance behaves as the forecast horizon is extended.

Read together, this literature shows three trends and a corresponding gap. The first trend is architectural: the field has moved from hand-crafted condition indicators, through recurrent encoders [13, 12], to attention-based and hybrid multi-branch models [24, 23], with each step buying longer effective memory at the cost of more parameters and more training data. The second is representational: increasing effort is spent on what is fed to the model—multi-sensor fusion, multi-scale decomposition, and learned embeddings—rather than only on the classifier itself [24, 11]. The third is evaluative: surveys repeatedly note that reported accuracies are difficult to compare because datasets, horizons, and partitioning protocols differ, and that leakage-prone evaluation is common [9, 21, 7]. The gap this leaves is a method that treats the input representation as the primary object of design for long horizons specifically, and that is validated under a partitioning protocol strict enough for the claim to survive scrutiny. That is the gap addressed here.

Point forecasts can hide distributional widening, asymmetric tails, and early-stage degradation envelopes. Quantile regression estimates conditional quantiles rather than a single expected value and is therefore useful when the shape of the predictive distribution matters [14, 15]. In PdM, this is important because abnormal behaviour may first appear as tail movement or uncertainty growth before a clear threshold breach. The present work uses quantile regression not as a final forecaster, but as a feature interface: a dual-stage QRNN transforms raw multi-sensor behaviour into a compact distribution-aware state representation for downstream temporal classification. By encoding how each channel’s conditional quantiles evolve, the extractor captures the trajectory pattern of a sensor rather than the raw values within a single window. This suppresses the sample-level noise of closely spaced readings and exposes the slow distributional drift associated with incipient degradation. Section IV-A makes the corresponding argument against the natural alternatives—variance, skewness, and density features—explicit, since the choice of a quantile encoding over these requires justification rather than assertion.

A parallel line of work forecasts degradation over extended horizons, most often as an RUL regression. Because that literature defines the state of the art against which a long-horizon claim must be judged, we summarise it and state what distinguishes the present task.

Transformer-based degradation models address the data-availability problem directly.  [29] propose ZSTT, a zero-shot transformer that combines approximate Bayesian inference with a Gumbel-based dynamic masking module so that multisource degradation prediction can be performed without pretraining on the target system, validated on hydraulic-actuator degradation. This addresses a constraint the present work does not face—we have labeled target-system data—but it shares the underlying premise that the input representation, not merely the sequence model, governs transferability.

Multi-scale feature fusion is the second recurring strategy. Adaptive dual-branch multi-scale fusion for complex-equipment RUL [30] and related parallel multi-scale designs decompose the signal across temporal resolutions before fusion, on the argument that degradation evidence is distributed across scales. Our dual-stage quantile extractor is motivated by the same concern but decomposes across the distributional axis at a fixed temporal resolution rather than across temporal scales.

Cross-condition generalisation is the third. Adversarial domain-adaptation methods with stage division for ship electric-propulsion RUL [31] align intra- and inter-domain feature distributions so that a model trained under one operating condition transfers to another. This is a close analogue to the domain-shift problem encountered in a multi-site fleet. The present work does not perform explicit domain alignment and does not claim unseen-site transfer: the long-horizon split is machine-disjoint but remains stratified across the observed facility population.

Finally, multi-sensor selection and graph-structured fusion—as in ParallelGraphNet-driven sensor optimisation for high-speed diagnosis [32]—show that channel selection materially affects diagnostic accuracy in multi-sensor industrial settings. We fix the channel set by engineering judgement rather than optimising it, which we note as a limitation in Section VI-F.

Transformer models provide strong long-range sequence modelling through attention [17, 16]. The Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) combines gated residual networks, static covariate conditioning, temporal variable selection, and interpretable attention for multi-horizon forecasting [18]. These properties are attractive for industrial PdM because machine behaviour depends on both temporal sensor evolution and contextual factors such as machine identity, facility conditions, material transitions, and known-ahead production schedules. TQRNN_30d adapts the TFT idea to a supervised industrial fault-prediction task, where the primary classifier input is a learned document-level quantile-state sequence rather than a direct raw sensor sequence.

Anomaly detection and fault forecasting are related but distinct, and it is worth stating plainly which of the two this paper performs. Anomaly detection asks whether the current observation is inconsistent with normal behaviour: it is a statement about the present, is frequently unsupervised, and is evaluated on how well it flags the deviation once it is present [19, 20, 21]. Fault forecasting, the task addressed here, asks whether a labelled abnormal event will occur within a future window: it is a statement about the future, is supervised, and is evaluated on lead time as well as separability.

The distinction in this paper is between anomaly detection and prospective anomaly prediction, rather than between unrelated tasks. Conventional anomaly detection determines whether the current or immediately observed machine state deviates from learned normal behaviour. In contrast, TQRNN_30d uses the evolving distributional structure of the observation document to predict whether abnormal or fault-associated behaviour will occur within a future forecasting horizon. The framework therefore moves the anomaly-detection problem forward in time: the objective is not simply to identify an anomaly once it is observable, but to recognise precursor changes in multivariate sensor behaviour sufficiently early to support maintenance intervention before the abnormal event occurs.

This prospective formulation is central to the proposed method. The dual-stage QRNN representation captures changes in the conditional sensor distributions, including displacement, widening, and asymmetry across retained quantile states, while the temporal-fusion classifier determines whether those changes are consistent with the progression towards a confirmed future abnormal event. Accordingly, anomaly-related information remains fundamental to the model, but it is incorporated as predictive evidence rather than as a separate reconstruction-error, density-threshold, or unsupervised alarm stage at inference.

Anomaly-detection methods are additionally retained as comparative baselines. The autoencoder and generative-adversarial-network (GAN) models in Table V are adapted to the same future fault-occurrence target as the other classifiers, providing a like-for-like test of whether conventional anomaly-oriented representations remain competitive when the task is shifted from present-state detection to long-horizon prediction. The wider anomaly-detection literature also provides an important methodological foundation for this formulation because progressive degradation may first become observable as a change in the distribution or temporal structure of sensor behaviour before a conventional operating threshold is breached [19, 21]. The contribution of TQRNN_30d is therefore not to exclude anomaly detection, but to extend its underlying principle towards causal, long-horizon prediction of future abnormal machine behaviour.

At longer horizons, degradation may involve locally unstable behaviour in which prediction errors diverge over several successive steps rather than appearing as a single spike. Classical non-linear diagnostics such as Lyapunov exponents characterise trajectory divergence [28], but they require phase-space reconstruction, long stationary records, and careful embedding-parameter selection, none of which is available in a causal industrial deployment at scale. We therefore do not estimate any dynamical invariant. The gate described in Section IV-D is a heuristic detector of sustained prediction-error growth, and we refer to it throughout as instability-aware rather than chaos-aware, to avoid implying a formal dynamical-systems result that this paper does not establish.

The data derive from proprietary industrial sensor installations deployed across nine manufacturing facilities operated by a single organisation. Facility identifiers, geographic identifiers, equipment-specific descriptors, and product-specific parameters were anonymised prior to analysis in accordance with the industrial data-governance agreement. The monitored assets form a homogeneous fleet of industrial production equipment operating within continuous manufacturing environments. Each asset performs repetitive, high-duty-cycle operations under sustained cyclic loading and variable operating conditions.

The full deployment comprises 72 machines distributed across facilities in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Failure-event records and associated sensor streams span a 24-month operational period from January 2024 to December 2025. This corresponds to approximately 1,263,168 machine-hours of potential observation across the complete fleet before preprocessing exclusions. The deployment belongs to one organisation and one machine/product family; the multi-facility scale therefore exposes the models to operational variability without constituting a cross-sector or cross-equipment evaluation.

Each machine is instrumented with heterogeneous 12-bit sensors producing integer readings in the range $[0,4095]$. The long-horizon TQRNN_30d configuration uses 81 channels across six sensor groups. Table I summarises the sensor composition and native sampling rates.

For consistency with the representation established in the underlying TQRNN methodology, the terms word and document are retained to denote temporal granularity. An hourly word represents one hour of causally aligned multivariate machine observations, while a document is the temporally ordered sequence of hourly words spanning the complete observation window. For the TQRNN_30d configuration, each document contains $K=720$ hourly words.

The terminology defines the hierarchical organisation of the industrial time series and does not imply a linguistic input representation. Each hourly word contains continuous multivariate sensor observations rather than a discrete vocabulary element. The word-level observations are transformed by the dual-stage QRNN feature extractor into learned quantile-state representations, and the resulting document-level sequence is processed by the causal recurrent and attention mechanisms. Temporal ordering is preserved throughout the architecture, and no future observation is available during either feature extraction or classification.

Ground-truth labels are established from three independent operational sources: operator logs, PLC fault codes, and maintenance records documenting intervention and root cause. Domain-expert review is used for ambiguous cases. Because the reliability of every reported classification metric depends on this procedure, it is stated explicitly.

The final TQRNN_30d regime uses the full deployment of 72 machines across nine manufacturing facilities. Partitioning is performed at the machine level: all retained windows from an individual machine are assigned exclusively to one subset. This prevents raw time-series measurements and overlapping documents from the same machine from being shared between training, validation, and testing.

The allocation uses 43 machines (59.7%) for training, 14 machines (19.4%) for validation, and 15 machines (20.8%) for testing. Allocation is stratified across the nine participating facilities so that each partition contains machines from the observed site population. This is a machine-disjoint, multi-site held-out test; it is not a leave-one-site-out test and does not establish transfer to a facility absent from model development.

All document construction remains causal. For an observation document ending at $t_{0}$, only information available before $t_{0}$ enters the input and the target interval lies strictly in the future. Preprocessing quantities, including normalisation statistics, imputation rules, class weights, and model-selection parameters, are estimated from the applicable training/development data and then held fixed for validation and held-out evaluation. The earlier short-horizon pilot used its own chronological split; those regime-specific procedures are not retroactively attributed to the 72-machine long-horizon results reported here.

The feature-extraction design is motivated by the observation that pre-failure behaviour is not expressed only as a shift in mean sensor level. In the underlying industrial study, degradation may appear as widening dispersion, asymmetric tails, or changes in the relative position of observations within the operating distribution. Point-estimate summaries can obscure these effects through averaging, whereas conditional quantiles preserve distributional structure explicitly.

Three properties are particularly relevant. First, quantile representations expose changes in distributional spread before a dominant central-location shift is visible. Second, separate upper and lower quantiles retain directional information about asymmetric movement; for example, the pair $q_{0.25}$ and $q_{0.75}$ preserves the interquartile envelope rather than collapsing it into one symmetric moment. Third, quantile-based features remain useful in the heavy-tailed and occasionally impulsive operating distributions encountered in production, where a single Gaussian description is often inappropriate. These properties make the quantile representation a suitable intermediate interface between heterogeneous sensor data and downstream temporal classification.

The long-horizon second-stage set $\{0.25,0.40,0.60,0.75\}$ is a methodological refinement of the original $\{0.25,0.75\}$ representation rather than the result of an exhaustive search over candidate level sets. The 0.25 and 0.75 levels preserve the interquartile envelope, while 0.40 and 0.60 add an interior pair around the median so that upward and downward displacement around the distribution centre remains distinguishable. The median itself remains represented in the broader first-stage ten-quantile set, as do the more extreme quantiles. The purpose of QRNN₂ is therefore targeted second-stage estimation in the intermediate region rather than duplication of a subset of QRNN₁ outputs.

The day-scale ablation in Table II provides the empirical evidence for the representation hierarchy. At 30 days, the Transformer-only day-scale configuration reaches 67.13% F1, whereas the fully integrated two-stage quantile pipeline reaches 79.97%. The isolated QRNN stages are weaker than the integrated model, indicating that the strongest result arises from coupling distribution-aware feature extraction with long-context temporal classification rather than from either block in isolation.

The feature extractor, summarised in Fig. 2, transforms each hourly word into a compact mid-tail quantile representation through two cascaded quantile-regression stages.

The long-horizon classifier uses four information streams. The TFT components— gated residual processing, variable selection, causal recurrent encoding, and attention—follow established temporal-fusion principles [18]; the specific interface in this work is the coupling of the QRNN-derived document representation with dynamic, static, and historical context.

• •

  Quantile state $\mathbf{P}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{324}$, formed from four retained quantiles for each of the 81 physical sensor channels.

• •

  Dynamic covariates $\mathbf{D}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{29}$, comprising environmental, facility, operational, and known-ahead contextual variables available at prediction time; these are projected to 516 dimensions.

• •

  Static channel metadata $\mathbf{S}_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ for channel $i$, encoding channel type, physical location, and the causally available channel-health/degradation-prior indicator. Each channel vector is embedded as $\mathbf{S}^{\prime}_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{64}$ and collected in

  $$\mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{bank}}=[\mathbf{S}^{\prime}_{1};\ldots;\mathbf{S}^{\prime}_{C_{s}}]\in\mathbb{R}^{81\times 64}.$$

  (7)

  An aggregated 64-dimensional static representation $\mathbf{S}^{\prime}$ is used for global conditioning, whereas $\mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{bank}}$ is retained for channel-indexed cross-modal attention.

• •

  Historical latent memory $\mathbf{L}(t)$, formed from stored 96-dimensional MLP₁ embeddings over a 168-hour look-back and projected to 192 dimensions before recurrent fusion.

At hourly word position $t$, the temporally varying streams form

where $1032=324+516+192$. The static representations remain separate conditioning inputs and do not increase this recurrent width.

Gated residual networks provide nonlinear transformation with residual and gated information flow. In compact form,

Context-conditioned variable selection uses the aggregated static representation $\mathbf{S}^{\prime}$ to reweight the temporally varying inputs before a causal GRU encoder. The recurrent pathway processes the document strictly in temporal order; no future word is available when computing the hidden state at the current position.

After causal recurrent encoding, cross-modal attention conditions the evolving temporal evidence on channel-indexed static metadata. Let $\mathbf{E}(t)$ denote the encoded temporal-evidence representation presented to the attention block. For attention head $m$, the temporal pathway provides the query and the metadata bank provides keys and values:

where the softmax is taken over the $C_{s}=81$ channel-metadata entries. With a shared value projection $\mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{att}}=\mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{bank}}W_{V}$, the attended metadata context is obtained from the head-aggregated weights and is fused with the temporal pathway before classification.

For prediction horizon $H$, the document-level classification head produces $K_{H}$ hourly forecast-interval logits, where $K_{H}\in\{168,336,720\}$ for the 7-, 14-, and 30-day tasks. Element-wise sigmoid activation gives

with $\hat{y}_{r}$ denoting the estimated failure probability in forecast interval $I_{r}$. The headline Normal/Abnormal decision is obtained by thresholding the structured output at the selected operating point; the interval structure is retained internally rather than replaced by a scalar RUL target.

For the longest-horizon pathway, TQRNN_30d uses an auxiliary instability-aware signal to support temporal memory retention when local prediction-error divergence persists across successive hourly words. The mechanism is deliberately limited: it is not an estimate of a global or local Lyapunov exponent, does not perform online phase-space reconstruction, and is not a separate fault classifier.

For sensor channel $i$, let $u_{i}(k)$ denote the observed auxiliary channel-state summary at hourly word $k$, derived from the retained channel-level quantile-state representation. Let $\hat{u}_{i}(k\mid<k)$ denote its one-word-ahead prediction using only information available strictly before word $k$. The auxiliary prediction error is

The local prediction-error divergence score is

with $\epsilon=10^{-3}$. A channel is treated as exhibiting sustained local divergence only after three consecutive threshold exceedances:

where $\lambda_{0}=0.2$ in the evaluated configuration. For the degradation- sensitive channel subset $\mathcal{C}$, the aggregate signal is

where $w_{i}$ are learned non-negative channel weights.

Before entering the temporal gate, the aggregate score is bounded:

with learned scalar parameters $a_{\Lambda}$ and $b_{\Lambda}$. The instability- aware update gate is then

where $\kappa_{z}\geq 0$ controls the strength of the bounded memory bias. Under sustained local divergence, the additive term biases the update gate towards retaining more of the previous hidden state. The retained QRNN representation remains the primary predictive basis; the instability pathway supplies only an auxiliary modulation signal. Its independent performance contribution was not isolated in a dedicated with/without ablation in the completed experimental programme and is therefore not claimed separately.

The two QRNN stages are trained using the pinball quantile loss in (5) to construct the upstream quantile representation. The long-horizon TFT classifier is then trained on that QRNN-derived representation as a document-level, multi-output binary classifier. For training document $b$ and forecast interval $r$, let $y_{b,r}\in\{0,1\}$ and $\hat{y}_{b,r}\in[0,1]$ denote the target and predicted failure probability. The interval-wise binary cross-entropy is

where $\tilde{y}_{b,r}=\mathrm{clip}(\hat{y}_{b,r},\varepsilon,1-\varepsilon)$ for numerical stability.

Because confirmed-failure intervals are sparse relative to non-failure intervals, the implemented classifier uses class-weighted BCE where appropriate:

The weights are calculated from the training partition only using inverse class prevalence and are held fixed during validation and testing. For mini-batch $\mathcal{B}$, the classifier objective is

where $\rho_{\mathrm{wd}}$ is the weight-decay coefficient reported in Table IV. The decision threshold is applied only at inference time; it is not part of the training loss. Validation-based early stopping and the learning-rate schedule in Table IV are used during classifier training.

Performance is reported using F1-score, recall, precision, and accuracy at the selected operating threshold. Unless otherwise stated, these metrics are first computed for each evaluation unit and are then reported as unweighted means across the corresponding held-out cohort. Consequently, the reported F1-score is the mean of the per-unit F1-scores and is not obtained by taking the harmonic mean of the reported mean precision and mean recall. This definition explains why the aggregate F1 value need not equal $2PR/(P+R)$ when $P$ and $R$ denote the tabled cohort means.

Threshold-independent discrimination is assessed using ROC–AUC. Positive-class behaviour under imbalance is additionally summarised using the mean multi-site precision–recall profile area from the completed evaluation. This is a profile-level area summary and is not relabelled as raw-score average precision. Computational cost is reported using training time per epoch, inference latency, parameter count, and peak GPU memory.

Data processing and evaluation were implemented in Python using NumPy, pandas, and SciPy. Neural-network models were implemented in PyTorch, while classical machine-learning baselines and standard evaluation procedures used scikit-learn. The neural models were trained using Adam with learning-rate scheduling, validation-based early stopping, and architecture-specific dropout and normalisation.

The TQRNN_30d configuration uses 81 physical sensor channels, a 720-hour input sequence, and a 168-hour latent-history window. Its temporal evidence stream has dimension 1032, comprising the 324-dimensional QRNN representation, 516-dimensional dynamic-context projection, and 192-dimensional latent-history projection; static metadata are embedded separately.

Training was performed using a single NVIDIA A100 GPU with 80 GB memory, supported by AMD EPYC 7742 and 7763 processors. Training the final dual-stage QRNN feature extractor required approximately 20 hours, followed by approximately 32 hours for the TFT classifier, giving approximately 52 hours for one complete TQRNN_30d training cycle. This figure excludes baseline and ablation training.

Each reported model configuration corresponds to one completed training and held-out evaluation run under its fixed experimental settings. The headline results are therefore not averages over repeated random initializations. A systematic multi-seed retraining study was not performed, and seed-to-seed variance is consequently not reported.

The following assumptions and limitations condition interpretation of the reported results.

1. 1.

   Label reliability. Operator records, PLC fault codes, and maintenance records are treated as the operational ground-truth sources under the two-of-three confirmation rule. Unrecorded faults or unlogged interventions can therefore create label noise.

2. 2.

   Sensor validity. Channels are assumed to remain correctly calibrated and mapped to the intended assets over the analysed periods; the classifier is not preceded by a separate sensor-fault diagnosis model.

3. 3.

   Distribution stability within the observed deployment. Training-derived normalisation and preprocessing quantities are assumed to remain applicable to the held-out machines and periods drawn from the same industrial estate. Longer-term concept drift is not eliminated by this design.

4. 4.

   Homogeneity of the asset family. Pooling across facilities assumes that the common machine family shares sufficiently similar degradation physics and sensor semantics. This does not imply transfer to an unseen facility or another machine class.

5. 5.

   Dependence of overlapping documents. The machine-disjoint split prevents raw measurements from the same machine appearing in more than one partition, but successive 30-day documents within a machine overlap by 719 hours. Such documents are valid prediction instances but are not interpreted as independent machines, sites, or experimental replications.

No synthetic data or simulation is used to generate the headline classifier results; they derive from recorded operational data.

Hyperparameters for the TFT were selected for model optimisation and long-horizon stability, ensuring robust handling of temporal and contextual data. Table IV outlines the architectural and training configuration.

Table V reports the completed 7-, 14-, and 30-day cross-model comparison. TQRNN_30d leads all four fixed-threshold metrics at every horizon. At 7 days it reaches 76.09% F1 compared with 72.20% for the strongest F1 baseline, RoBERTa; at 14 days the margin widens to 76.76% versus 70.49%; and at 30 days TQRNN_30d reaches 79.97% F1, 80.18% recall, 81.82% precision, and 82.39% accuracy, compared with RoBERTa at 77.50% F1 and 77.89% accuracy. The 30-day gain is therefore not produced by a precision–recall trade-off alone because both recall and precision improve.

Figure 4 compares TQRNN_30d with RoBERTa, the strongest competing baseline at each evaluated horizon. TQRNN_30d achieves F1-scores of 76.09%, 76.76%, and 79.97% at 7, 14, and 30 days, respectively, compared with 72.20%, 70.49%, and 77.50% for RoBERTa. The corresponding improvements are 3.89, 6.27, and 2.47 percentage points. The advantage is therefore maintained across all three horizons, although it is not monotonic and is largest at 14 days.

The completed ablation evidence is reported at two levels. Table II traces the day-scale pipeline from the transferred 70-hour reference through isolated QRNN stages and a Transformer-only configuration to the fully integrated TQRNN_30d. Table VI separately isolates TFT-side fusion components under flat-input conditions. These complementary experiments should not be read as a one-component-at-a-time ablation of the final complete model.

The threshold-swept results support the fixed-threshold findings. Table VII shows the receiver-operating-characteristic curves at the 30-day horizon for the proposed model and the strongest comparators. At this horizon TQRNN_30d achieves the highest ROC–AUC, 0.820, compared with 0.724 for TFT${}_{\text{full}}$, 0.722 for RoBERTa, and 0.717 for Transformer-XL. The separation is visible across the whole curve rather than at a single operating point, which indicates improved class separation over the decision-threshold range rather than a more favourable threshold choice. The 30-day AUC estimates were accompanied by prediction-instance percentile-bootstrap 95% intervals based on $B=10{,}000$ resamples: $[0.819,0.821]$ for TQRNN_30d and $[0.722,0.725]$ for TFT_full. Because consecutive documents can overlap temporally, these intervals quantify prediction-population precision and are not interpreted as machine-level, site-level, or unseen-domain generalisation intervals.

Positive-class discrimination is summarised using the mean multi-site precision–recall profile area. As shown in Table VIII, TQRNN_30d achieves the largest PR-profile area of 0.638, ahead of RoBERTa (0.581) and Transformer-XL (0.552). Across the 19-model comparison (18 baselines plus TQRNN_30d), the corresponding all-model mean profile area was 0.432.

Table IX reports indicative computational cost so that the accuracy gains can be weighed against deployment feasibility. Four quantities are listed: training time per epoch (development cost), mean inference latency per window (the cost that matters at deployment), parameter count (model capacity and memory footprint), and peak GPU memory (the hardware required to serve the model). Rows are grouped by model family and ordered by parameter count within each group: the two proposed configurations first, then the transformer and recurrent deep baselines, then the large pretrained language-model baselines, and finally the lightweight classical methods. The comparison shows that although TQRNN_30d is heavier than compact classical and recurrent baselines, it remains an order of magnitude smaller than the language-model baselines (11.4M parameters versus 110–125M for BERT and RoBERTa) while achieving higher accuracy. Its 18 ms inference latency is well within the budget for batch-mode maintenance planning, where predictions are refreshed at operational rather than millisecond control timescales.

The framework was deployed within a broader maintenance and operational- improvement programme across the nine participating facilities. During the 24-month observation period, the organisation’s recorded production-output efficiency increased from 78.38% to 90.23%. Internal accounting also indicated reductions in maintenance disruption and scrap-related losses, together with additional production output. Detailed financial values are omitted because they depend on commercially sensitive cost, pricing, and production assumptions.

These observations provide deployment context rather than causal evidence of model effectiveness. No contemporaneous untreated control facilities were available, and changes to maintenance scheduling, operator practices, and production processes occurred during the same period. The observed operational and financial changes therefore cannot be attributed independently to the predictive framework.

The results should be interpreted within the following experimental and deployment boundaries.