MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7028932421

Improved Dynamic Latent Variable Modeling for Process Monitoring, Fault Diagnosis and Anomaly Detection

2023· dissertation· en· W7028932421 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnomaly detectionFault detection and isolationAutoencoderExploitLatent variablePartial least squares regressionProcess (computing)Canonical correlationCurse of dimensionalityFault (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the rapid advancement of modern industrial processes, a considerable number of measured variables enhance the complexity of systems, progressively leading to the development of multivariate statistical analysis (MSA) methods to exploit valuable information from the collected data for predictive modeling, fault detection and diagnosis, such as partial least squares (PLS), canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and their extensions. However, these methods suffer from some issues, involving the irrelevant information extracted by PLS, and CCA’s inability to exploit quality information. Latent variable regression (LVR) was designed to address these issues, but it has not been fully and systematically studied. \nA concurrent kernel LVR (CKLVR) with a regularization term is designed for collinear and nonlinear data to construct a full decomposition of the original nonlinear data space, and to provide comprehensive information of the systems. Further, dynamics are inevitable in practical industrial processes, and thus a dynamic auto-regressive LVR (DALVR) is also proposed based on regularized LVR to capture dynamic variations in both process and quality data. The comprehensive monitoring framework and fault diagnosis and causal analysis scheme based on DALVR are developed. Their superiority can be demonstrated with case studies, involving the Tennessee Eastman process, Dow’s refining process and three-phase flow facility process. \nIn addition to MSA approaches, autoencoder (AE) technology is extensively used in complicated processes to handle the expanding dimensionality caused by the increasing complexity of industrial applications. Apart from modeling and fault diagnosis, anomaly detection draws great attention as well to maintain the performance, avoid economic losses, and ensure safety during the industrial processes. In view of advantages in dimensionality reduction and feature retention, autoencoder (AE) technology is widely applied for anomaly detection monitoring. Considering both high dimensionality and dynamic relations between elements in the hidden layer, an improved autoencoder with dynamic hidden layer (DHL-AE) is proposed and applied for anomaly detection monitoring. Two case studies including Tennessee Eastman process and Wind data are used to show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)→Same topicFault Detection and Control Systems→French-language works237,207→