Community detection based process decomposition and distributed monitoring for large‐scale processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Distributed architectures wherein multiple decision‐making units are employed to coordinate their decision‐making/actions based on real‐time communication have become increasingly important for monitoring processes that have large scales and complex structures. Typically, the development of a distributed monitoring scheme involves two key steps, that is, the decomposition of the process into subsystems, and the design of local monitors based on the configured subsystem models. In this article, we propose a distributed process monitoring approach that tackles both steps for large‐scale processes. A data‐driven process decomposition approach is proposed by leveraging community structure detection to divide variables into subsystems optimally via finding a maximal value of the metric of modularity. A two‐layer distributed monitoring scheme is developed where local monitors are designed based on the configured subsystems of variables using canonical correlation analysis. Inner‐subsystem interactions and inter‐subsystem interactions are tackled by the two layers separately, such that the sensitivity of this monitoring scheme to certain types of faults is improved. We utilize a numerical example to illustrate the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed method. It is then applied to a simulated wastewater treatment process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".