MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402305497 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.08.441

Identification of Most Critical Alarms for Alarm Flood Reduction

2024· article· en· W4402305497 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Habibur Rahaman, Haniyeh Seyed Alinezhad, Tongwen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMIdentification (biology)Flood mythReduction (mathematics)Computer scienceComputer securityGeographyEngineeringBiologyMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In complex processes, the activation of a single alarm can trigger a cascade of consequences that affect multiple interconnected components. As a result, the number of active alarms can increase rapidly. This sudden surge in alarms is often referred to as an alarm flood. Alarm floods are a common source of operational burden for operators, overwhelming them with a high volume of alarm notifications. If critical alarms are not promptly and accurately identified, decision-making processes can be undermined. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a novel approach for identifying and prioritizing critical alarms from each alarm flood. Hidden Markov models are employed to construct a likelihood matrix that reveals the relationships among alarm variables, and identifies the most critical alarm from a directed acyclic graph. Case studies are conducted using a vinyl acetate monomer simulator to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The results highlight accurate identification and prioritization of critical alarms, enabling operators to focus on the most important process abnormalities.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207