MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771729497 · doi:10.1002/aic.16059

Extracting dynamic features with switching models for process data analytics and application in soft sensing

2017· article· en· W2771729497 on OpenAlexafffund
Yanjun Ma, Biao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceRepresentation (politics)Latent variableContext (archaeology)Data miningAnalyticsSoft sensorMachine learningProbabilistic logicFeature (linguistics)Bayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceConstruct (python library)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, soft sensors have been profoundly studied and successfully applied to predict critical process variables in real‐time. While dealing with various application scenarios, data‐driven methods with representation learning possess great potentials. Latent features are formulated in these approaches to predict outputs from correlated input variables. In this study, a probabilistic framework of feature extraction is proposed in the context of process data analysis. To address switching behaviors in industrial processes, multiple emission models are utilized to construct latent space. To address temporal correlations from continuously operating processes, a dynamic model is implemented in latent space. Bayesian learning strategy is then developed for parameters estimation, where modeling preferences and uncertainties from multiple models are considered. The effectiveness and practicability of the proposed feature extraction algorithm are illustrated through numerical simulations, as well as an industrial case study. © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 64: 2037–2051, 2018

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207