MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414559154 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70086

Complex multi‐stage process fault detection based on t‐ <scp>SNE</scp> ‐ <scp>BPNN</scp> combined with spatiotemporal neighbour center distance

2025· article· en· W4414559154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liwei Feng, Bin Tian, Zhenhao Cui, Yuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFault detection and isolationProcess (computing)StatisticEmbeddingPattern recognition (psychology)AutocorrelationFault (geology)Feature extractionNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To address the difficulty of fault detection in nonlinear, dynamic, and multi‐stage processes, a spatiotemporal neighbour centre distance (SNCD) statistic is proposed. SNCD is combined with t‐distributed stochastic neighbour embedding (t‐SNE) and back propagation neural network (BPNN) to develop the t‐SNE‐BPNN‐SNCD (tB‐SNCD) fault detection method. The t‐SNE‐BPNN leverages BPNN to learn the nonlinear implicit mapping relationships during the t‐SNE feature extraction and dimensionality reduction process, solving the problem of embedding new samples in t‐SNE. SNCD utilizes not only the spatial neighbour information of samples but also their temporal neighbour information, providing a more comprehensive extraction of process features, eliminating the autocorrelation of process data, and overcoming the difficulties posed by the dynamics of the process for fault detection. Since SNCD makes decisions based on the neighbourhood of samples, it is applicable to nonlinear, multi‐stage processes. The performance of tB‐SNCD is tested through numerical simulation processes and the Tennessee Eastman process, showing a higher fault detection rate compared to KPCA, DPCA, DKPCA, KNN, PC‐WKNN, and LOF methods. Particularly, when faults are time‐related, the fault detection rate of tB‐SNCD is significantly higher than that of classical methods.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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