Improved Dynamic Latent Variable Modeling for Process Monitoring and Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the advancement of modern industrial processes, a considerable number of measured variables enhance the complexity of systems, progressively leading to the development of multivariate statistical analysis (MSA) methods to exploit valuable information from the collected data for predictive modeling, fault detection and diagnosis, such as partial least squares (PLS), canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and their extensions.However, these methods suffer from some issues, involving the irrelevant information extracted by PLS, and CCA's inability to exploit quality information.Latent variable regression (LVR) was designed to address these issues, but it has not been fully and systematically studied.A concurrent kernel LVR (CKLVR) with a regularization term is designed for collinear and nonlinear data to construct a full decomposition of the original nonlinear data space, and to provide comprehensive information of the systems.Further, dynamics are inevitable in practical industrial processes, and thus a dynamic auto-regressive LVR (DALVR) is also proposed based on regularized LVR to capture dynamic variations in both process and quality data.The comprehensive monitoring framework and fault diagnosis and causal analysis scheme based on DALVR are developed.Their superiority can be demonstrated with case studies, involving the Tennessee Eastman process, Dow's refining process and three-phase flow facility 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".