A lightweight and interference-resilient sound anomaly detection model for industrial machines based on semantic embedding trees


Abstract

In industrial acoustic environments, abnormal sound detection is a vital technique for monitoring machine health and ensuring operational safety. However, real-world industrial settings are often filled with unpredictable background interference such as human speech, footsteps, and environmental noise, which significantly challenge detection accuracy. Existing methods frequently rely on large-scale models or assume noise-free laboratory conditions, limiting their practical deployment.

In this paper, we propose a lightweight and interference-resilient sound anomaly detection model based on semantic embedding trees (IRASD-GST). By constructing a hierarchical semantic tree using text embeddings and large language models, we obtain a semantically meaningful vector space for audio tags. Combined with CNN–BiLSTM-based feature extraction and event masking, the model accurately filters irrelevant sounds and identifies true equipment anomalies.

Experimental results demonstrate high performance under noisy conditions, achieving 96% precision and 97% recall, with a model size under 7 million parameters and an inference time of 0.034 seconds. These properties make the proposed model highly suitable for edge deployment in real-time industrial monitoring systems.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].