When More Modalities Hurt: Modality Dropout for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Engine Diagnostics
Organizations: Center for Applied Intelligent Systems Research, Halmstad University, Sweden
Abstract
Heavy-duty vehicle diagnostics generate three disconnected data modalities: unstructured multi- lingual service complaints, high-dimensional sensor telemetry with over 80% missing values, and Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs). We investigate whether fusing these modalities improves engine component classification on a proprietary dataset from a major truck manufacturer. Through 5-fold cross-validation across multiple model configurations spanning three model families on five engine component classes (885 samples, the full cross-database matched population for this manufacturer), we find that naive fusion provides modest gains over text alone (65.3%). However, modality dropout during training, which randomly disables entire modalities per batch, forces the network to exploit weaker inputs and achieves 68.8% accuracy on text+DTC fusion (weighted F1: 0.67), a 3.5-point improvement over text-only (65.3%, weighted F1: 0.64) and the best result across all methods including logistic regression and gradient-boosted trees. Per-class analysis shows that the dominant modality varies by fault type: text describes symptoms, DTCs encode structured fault signals, and sensors measure physical state. On intake/exhaust faults, sensors alone reach 93% where text achieves 80%. On fuel system faults, fusion with modality dropout nearly triples accuracy from 15% to 38% over text alone. To our knowledge, this is the first application of three-way modality fusion combining text, sensors, and fault codes in industrial vehicle diagnostics.
Figures & tables
| Complaint corpus | |
|---|---|
| Service records | 9K |
| Languages detected | 10+ |
| EN / FR / DE / ES / PL | 31 / 18 / 8 / 7 / 6% |
| Diagnostic complaints (est.) | 32% |
| Sensor telemetry | |
| Readout rows | 700K |
| Method | Modalities | Acc. (%) | Rand. | wF1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baselines | ||||
| Random | 20.0 | 1.0 | – | |
| Majority | 41.5 | 2.1 | – | |
| Logistic Regression | ||||
| LR | Sensor | 44.6 1.5 | 2.2 | – |
| LR | DTC | 54.8 2.2 | 2.7 | – |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Case | Ret-1 | Ret-2 | Ret-3 | Ret-4 | Ret-5 | Sensors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Not Rel. |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Conseq. |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Not Rel. |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Conseq. |
| 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Conseq. |
| Top- | Accuracy | Random | Improv. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.35% | 0.18% | 13.0 |
| 5 | 6.15% | 0.90% | 6.8 |
| 10 | 10.49% | 1.81% | 5.8 |
| 50 | 30.92% | 9.04% | 3.4 |
Fault Diagnosis
Fault diagnosis identifies, localizes, and explains failures in engineered and computational systems using sensor data, logs, models, and domain knowledge.
See all 146 papers