MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377096771 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24961

A transfer learning approach using improved copula subspace division for multi‐mode fault detection

2023· article· en· W4377096771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yang Zhou, Li Jia, Yilan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSubspace topologyCopula (linguistics)Computer scienceVine copulaTransfer of learningFault detection and isolationProbabilistic logicData miningAlgorithmMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi‐mode characteristics of industrial processes are prominent in the area of chemical production due to a diversified market demand. Despite mounting interests in predictive modelling for the optimization of operating conditions in chemical production processes, particularly in the petrochemical industry with multiple feeds and a range of cracking furnaces, targeted solutions that could hold wider applicability are typically hindered by the lack of available data. To overcome the limitation posed by data scarcity, an inductive approach based on transfer learning for fault detection is proposed utilizing copula subspace division (CSD), named TrAdaBoost CSD (TCSD). The proposed TCSD method is based on the probability view to transfer different most similar source samples to target samples. To select the optimal number of source samples, two adaptive indices were proposed and designed to adaptively assign the optimal model training iterations and sample number per iteration. Imbalance in data samples between the target and source datasets was addressed via the adaptive active vine copula‐based probabilistic method. The effectiveness and superiority of the proposed TCSD approaches are validated via a numerical example (with the ranges of normalized fault detection and false alarm rates [FDR and FAR] between 0.82–0.94 and 0.01–0.04, respectively), the Tennessee Eastman process (~10% and 2.24% improvement for FDR and FAR, respectively), and the ethylene cracking furnace process (~15% and 8% improvement for FDR and FAR, respectively).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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