MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929100271 · doi:10.48336/42ah-0r31

Fault detection and root cause diagnosis using sparse principal component analysis (SPCA)

2021· article· en· W6929100271 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHemoglobin structure and function
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisFault detection and isolationPattern recognition (psychology)Cluster analysisSparse PCAProjection (relational algebra)False alarmProcess (computing)Root cause

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data based methods are widely used in process industries for fault detection and diagnosis. Among the data-based methods multivariate statistical methods, for example, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Projection to Latent Squares (PLS), and Independent Component Analysis (ICA) are most widely used methods. These methods in general are successful in detecting process fault, however, diagnosis of the root cause is always not very accurate. The primary goal of the thesis is to improve the fault diagnosis ability of PCA based methods. In PCA, each Principal Component (PC) is a linear combination of all the variables, therefore makes it difficult to identify the root cause from the violation of a PC. Sparse Principal Component Analysis (SPCA) is one version of PCA that gets a sparse description of the PCA loading matrix making it more suitable for fault diagnosis. The present research aims to devise novel strategies to find the sparse description of loading matrix, more aligned with process fault detection and diagnosis. The thesis also looks into improving the fault diagnosis of PCA using clustering methods. The entire thesis can be divided into three major tasks. First, a novel fault detection and diagnosis method is proposed based on the Sparse Principal Component Analysis (SPCA) approach. This approach incorporates a new criterion based on the Fault Detection Rates (FDRs) and False Alarm Rates (FARs) into Zou et al.’s (2006) SPCA algorithms. The objective here is to find appropriate the (Number of Non-Zero Loadings) NNZLs for SPCs that can result in low FARs and high FDRs. A comparison between PCA and four SPCA-based methods for FDD using a continuous stirred tank heater (CSTH) as a benchmark system is also carried out. The results indicate that shortcomings of the PCA can be overcome using the Sparse Principal Component Analysis (SPCA) that uses the novel NNZL criterion. The FDR-FAR SPCA approach gives the highest FDRs for the SPE statistic (93.8%). The second task focuses on developing statistical methods to decide on the non-zero elements of the loading elements of SPCA. Rather than using heuristics, the proposed methods use the distribution of the loading elements to decide if an element should be set to zero. Two SPCA algorithms are proposed to find the NNZL and its position of each PC. The first algorithm is based on bootstrapping of the data, and the second approach is based Iterative Principal Component Analysis (IPCA). The proposed methods are implemented on a CSTH process to test the performance with PCA- and other SPCA-based methods for fault detection and diagnosis. The results reveal that the approaches have superior performance in fault detection, as well as diagnosis of the root cause of fault. Both the Bootstrap-SPCA and Sparse-IPCA methods give the highest FDRs for fault 1 for the SPE statistic (99.3% and 95.76%, respectively) As the third task, this research combines the clustering (k-means) algorithm and PCA algorithm to improve the detection and diagnosis of the fault. PCA has the advantage of detecting the fault without the need for data labelling, while clustering is able to distinguish data from different fault groups into separate clusters. By combining these two algorithms we are able to have better detection and diagnosis of fault and eliminate the need for data labelling. The performance of the proposed method is demonstrated in simulated and large-scale industrial case studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicHemoglobin structure and functionFrench-language works237,207