Quality‐relevant and process‐relevant fault monitoring based on <scp>GNPER</scp> and the fault quantification index for industrial processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional quality‐relevant fault monitoring methods focus on extracting the relationship between the global structural features of the process and quality variables but ignore the local features. At the same time, they lack the quantification of quality‐relevant faults. To solve these problems, a quality‐relevant and process‐relevant fault monitoring method and its fault quantification index based on global neighbourhood preserving embedding regression (GNPER) are proposed. First, by seeking the direction of maximum global variance, the global objective function is applied to neighbourhood preserving embedding algorithm, and the global neighbourhood preserving embedding (GNPE) model is established to fully extract the global and local information of process data. Second, on the basis of GNPE, through the idea of projection regression, the GNPER model is established to obtain mapping relationships among process variables and quality variables, and quality‐relevant subspace and process‐relevant subspace are extracted, the corresponding subspace statistics are established for fault monitoring. Finally, the fault quantification index is established for the faults in the two subspaces, which can provide more meaningful fault monitoring results. A numerical example, the hot rolling mill and the Tennessee Eastman (TE) process, verify the superiority and accuracy 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".