A time‐varying process monitoring approach based on iterative‐updated semi‐supervised nonnegative matrix factorizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes a new time‐varying process monitoring approach based on iterative‐updated semi‐supervised nonnegative matrix factorizations (ISNMFs). ISNMFs are a type of semi‐supervised model that constructs a semi‐nonnegative matrix factorization (SNMF) model of a process using both labelled and unlabelled samples. Compared with the existing nonnegative matrix factorizations (NMFs) where NMFs are referred to as matrix factorization algorithms that factorize a nonnegative matrix into two low‐rank nonnegative matrices whose product can well approximate the original nonnegative matrix, ISNMFs have advantages in terms of the model update and the use of labelled samples. The ISNMFs‐based process monitoring approach concerns fault detection and isolation and updates an SNMF model iteratively using the latest samples to capture the change of statistical property of time‐varying processes. Moreover, the proposed fault detection and isolation approach is supported by the k‐means algorithm in theory. At last, we demonstrate the superiority of ISNMFs over the existing NMFs in terms of fault detection and isolation through a case study on the penicillin fermentation 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".