Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper provides a proof of concept comparative study of four autoencoder architectures for compressing acceleration signals collected from a real railway tunnel under realistic and noisy conditions. The evaluated models include a Single-layer Sparse Autoencoder (SAE), a Fully Connected Autoencoder (FC), a Convolutional Autoencoder (CAE), and a hybrid architecture that combines convolutional (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layers. All models are trained and tested on segmented time-series acceleration data acquired under real operating conditions, including measurement noise and operational variability typical of real-world tunnel structural health monitoring (SHM) signals. The performance of the models is evaluated is evaluated using multiple quantitative metrics, including Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Coefficient of Determination (R ² ), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Cepstral Distance. A composite objective based on these metrics is employed to guide Bayesian hyperparameter optimization to select the optimal configurations. The best-performing model was a CNN-LSTM configuration. On average, CNN-LSTM models excelled at preserving temporal features (mean: MAE $$=$$ 0.38, R ² = 0.73, PSNR $$=$$ 16.33 dB), while the SAE better preserved spectral characteristics (mean CD $$=$$ 0.72). These results demonstrate the feasibility of autoencoder-based compression for tunnel vibration data and highlight the importance of architecture selection according to SHM objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruiz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: