MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789652994 · doi:10.1109/tie.2018.2795573

Detection of Frequent Alarm Patterns in Industrial Alarm Floods Using Itemset Mining Methods

2018· article· en· W2789652994 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenkai Hu, Tongwen Chen, Sirish L. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsALARMComputer scienceData miningManual fire alarm activationVisualizationIdentification (biology)Real-time computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of alarm floods is identified as the main reason for low efficiency of alarm systems and the leading cause of many industrial accidents. In practice, a commonly used technique to deal with alarm floods is dynamic alarm suppression, which temporally suppresses predefined groups of alarms following unplanned events that are not relevant or meaningful to the operator. However, determining what alarms to suppress from a pool of thousands of configured alarm variables remains a challenging problem. This paper proposes a data-driven method to find such alarm groups by detecting frequent patterns in alarm floods from historical alarm data. Main contributions of this study are: 1) the identification and extraction of alarm floods are formulated; 2) frequent alarm patterns are defined and itemset mining methods are adapted to discover meaningful patterns in alarm floods; and 3) new visualization techniques are proposed based on exiting plots to show alarm floods and alarm patterns. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated by application to real industrial data.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations86
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207