A robust neural network model for fault detection in the presence of mislabelled data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several data‐driven methodologies for process monitoring and detection of faults or abnormalities have been developed for the safety of processing systems. The effectiveness of data‐based models, however, is impacted by the volume and quality of training data. This work presents a robust neural network model for addressing the mislabelled and low‐quality data in detecting faults and process abnormalities. The approach is based on harnessing data quality features along with supervisory labels in the network training. The data quality has been computed using the Mahalanobis distances and trusted centres of each class of data such as normal and faulty data. The method has been examined for detecting abnormalities in two case studies; a continuous stirred tank heater problem for detecting leaks and the Tennessee Eastman chemical process for detecting step and sticking faults. The performance of the proposed robust artificial neural networks (ANN) model is evaluated in terms of accuracy, fault detection rate, false alarm rate, and classification index at varying extents of mislabelling, namely, 1%, 5%, and 10% mislabelled data. The proposed model demonstrates higher detection performance, especially at increased labels of mislabelled data where the performance of the conventional ANN is severely impacted. The proposed methodology can be advantageous in handling mislabelled and low‐quality data issues which are crucial in the data‐driven modelling of processing systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".