MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982556568 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23669

Deep neural network based recursive feature learning for nonlinear dynamic process monitoring

2019· article· en· W2982556568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiazhen Zhu, Hongbo Shi, Bing Song, Shuai Tan, Yang Tao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAutocorrelationArtificial neural networkComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Fault detection and isolationPredictabilityProcess (computing)Principal component analysisArtificial intelligenceNoise (video)Nonlinear systemFeature (linguistics)Noise reductionPattern recognition (psychology)Recurrent neural networkDynamic dataMachine learningDeep learningAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The data collected from modern industrial processes always have nonlinear and dynamic characteristics. The recently developed deep neural network method, stacked denoising auto‐encoder (SDAE), can extract robust nonlinear latent variables from data against noise. However, it leaves the dynamic relationship unconsidered. To solve this problem, a novel algorithm named the recursive stacked denoising auto‐encoder (RSDAE) is proposed. To learn the dynamic relationship, the RSDAE focuses on the predictability of the latent variables in the recurrence to contain the most dynamic variations. After the dynamic variations are extracted by the RSDAE, there is little autocorrelation left in the residuals. Then, the residuals can be monitored by principal component analysis (PCA). For the purpose of process monitoring, corresponding fault detection statistics are developed based on the RSDAE. Finally, a numerical case and the Tennessee Eastman process benchmark are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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