MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601232184 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22852

Combination of KPCA and causality analysis for root cause diagnosis of industrial process fault

2017· article· en· W2601232184 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. Gharahbagheri, Syed Imtiaz, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKernel principal component analysisProcess (computing)Causality (physics)Root causeFault (geology)Root cause analysisFault detection and isolationPrincipal component analysisKernel (algebra)Nonlinear systemComputer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsPattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringReliability engineeringMathematicsKernel methodSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) based monitoring has good fault detection capability for nonlinear process systems; however, it can only isolate variables that have a contribution to the occurrence of a fault, and thus it is not precise in diagnosing. Since there is a cause and effect relationship between different variables in a process, accordingly a network‐based causality analysis method was developed for different fault scenarios to show causal relationships between different variables and to see the causal effect between the variables most contributing to the occurrence of a fault. It was shown that KPCA in combination with causality analysis is a powerful tool for diagnosing the root cause of a fault in the process. In this paper the proposed methodology was applied to a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit and the Tennessee Eastman process to diagnose root causes for different faulty scenarios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207