MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916182456 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2894764

Systematic Development of a New Variational Autoencoder Model Based on Uncertain Data for Monitoring Nonlinear Processes

2019· article· en· W2916182456 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Wang, Michael G. Forbes, R. Bhushan Gopaluni, Junghui Chen, Zhihuan Song

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHoneywell (Canada)
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAutoencoderNonlinear systemComputer scienceData modelingNonlinear modelData miningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning models have been applied to industrial process fault detection because of their ability to approximate the complex nonlinear behavior. They have been proven to outperform the shallow neural network models. However, there are no good guidelines on how to build these deep models. Therefore, a good deep model is often constructed through a trial-and-error exercise. It is not easy to interpret the model because of features that do not have any physical interpretation. In addition, latent variables (or features) in a deep model are not independent. This causes features to overlap with each other, resulting in challenges in evaluating distributions of features and designing suitable monitoring indices. Finally, typical deep learning models in process monitoring are used in a deterministic manner and do not automatically provide confidence levels for each decision. In this paper, a variational autoencoder is utilized to develop a framework for monitoring uncertain nonlinear processes. The learned latent variables are guaranteed to be independent (or orthogonal) of each other under a specific optimization objective with constraints. The proposed method provides the density estimates of latent variables and residuals instead of point estimates. The density functions are used to design appropriate indices for monitoring. A simulation example and an industrial paper machine example are presented to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207