MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390005665 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25164

Fault detection and diagnosis for chemical processes using dynamic global–local preserving projections

2023· article· en· W4390005665 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Youqiang Chen, Fan Yang, Jianjun Bai, Limin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisMoment (physics)Dimensionality reductionCurse of dimensionalityFault detection and isolationMultivariate statisticsProjection (relational algebra)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningGraphArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmMachine learningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most traditional multivariate statistical monitoring methods require an assumption that the observation values at a certain moment and a past moment are statistically independent. However, in actual chemical and biological processes, the sample at a certain moment is often affected by the previous moment. Therefore, given the problem of more false alarms and poor detection ability based on the traditional principal component analysis, this article proposes a dynamic global–local preserving projections (DGLPP) algorithm. Unlike dynamic local preserving projections (DLPP) and dynamic principal component analysis (DPCA), DGLPP controls the global and local information retained in the dimensionality reduction data by introducing weight coefficients, which makes the algorithm applicable to more types of industrial processes. Moreover, new parameter determination methods are also proposed for improved detection and diagnosis. Through the improved contribution graph method, we can see the influence degree of each variable on the fault, to monitor and isolate the fault. Finally, by verifying the operation of the multivariable process and two practical cases, the results show that compared with DPCA, DLPP, and global local retained projection (GLPP) methods, the performance under this method has been significantly improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicFault Detection and Control Systems→French-language works237,207→