Similarity Analysis of Industrial Alarm Floods Based on Word Embedding and Move-Split-Merge Distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In industrial facilities, alarm systems are essential for process monitoring. However, due to the simplicity of alarm configuration and the poor performance of the alarm system, alarm floods often happen. Similarity analysis of alarm floods compares alarm flood sequences to look for common patterns. These patterns can offer information that is helpful in identifying root causes of alarm floods. Existing methods for alarm flood similarity analysis can only conduct similarity measures based on match operations for alarms represented by text strings; as a result, the match operations ignore the correlations between alarm occurrences. In this work, a new alarm flood similarity analysis method based on word embedding and Move-Split-Merge (MSM) distance is proposed, in order to reveal sequence similarity from a new perspective. The contributions are mainly twofold: 1) The correlations of alarm occurrences are considered in the alarm encoding via word embedding; 2) The MSM distance is calculated to analyze the similarity of alarm flood sequences of different lengths. Then, clustering results are compared with the original true labels of the alarm floods. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated by a case study with alarm data generated by a public industrial model of the Vinyl Acetate Monomer 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".