Fault Description Based Attribute Transfer for Zero-Sample Industrial Fault Diagnosis
Abstract
In this article, a challenging fault diagnosis task is studied, in which no samples of the target faults are available for the model training. This scenario has hardly been studied in industrial research. But it is a common problem that massive fault samples are not available for the target faults, which limits the successes of conventional data-driven approaches in practical application. Here, we introduce the idea of zero-shot learning into the industry field, and tackle the zero-sample fault diagnosis task by proposing the fault description based attribute transfer method. Specifically, the method learns to determine the fault categories using the human-defined fault descriptions instead of the collected fault samples.The defined description consists of arbitrary attributes of the faults, including the fault positions, the consequences of the fault, and even the cause of the fault, etc. For the attribute knowledge of target faults, they can be prelearned and transferred from some readily available faults occurred in the same process. Afterwards, the target faults can be diagnosed based on the defined fault descriptions without the need for any additional data based training. Besides, the supervised principle component analysis is adopted in our method to extract the attribute related features to offer an effective attribute learning. We analyze and interpret the feasibility of the fault description based method theoretically. Also, the zero-sample fault diagnosis experiments are designed and conducted on the benchmark Tennessee-Eastman process and the real thermal power plant process to validate the effectiveness. The results show that it is indeed possible to diagnose target faults without their samples.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ZSL can be useful in some AIoT application scenarios. For example, in fault diagnosis [208], some specific types of faults may occur in the future and should be recognized, but no training instances belonging to them have ever been collected previously.
“ZSL can be useful in some AIoT application scenarios. For example, in fault diagnosis [208], some specific types of faults may occur in the future and should be recognized, but no training instances belonging to them have ever been collected previously.”
From Empowering things with intelligence: a survey of the progress, challenges, and opportunities in artificial intelligence of things (2021) · cites this paper as [208]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785 · Cited by 54,569 · see citing works
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731 · see citing works
Pan, S. J., & Yang, Q. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2009.191 · Cited by 23,387 · see citing works
A generic intelligent bearing fault diagnosis system using compact adaptive 1D CNN classifier
Eren, L., Ince, T., & Kiranyaz, S. (2019) · Journal of Signal Processing Systems · doi:10.1007/s11265-018-1378-3 · Cited by 723 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, J., & Tao, D. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.3039359 · Cited by 774 · see citing works
- Authors
- Feng, L., & Zhao, C.
- Affiliations
- State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1852-1862
- ISSN
- 1551-3203 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0050
- OpenAlex
- W3019898994
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 78 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 19.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China-Zhejiang Joint Fund for the Integration of Industrialization and Informatization
- Integration of Industrialization and Informatization (U1709211)
- Zhejiang Key Research and Development Project (2019C03100, 2019C01048)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Machine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Advanced Statistical Process Monitoring
- Keywords
- zero-shot learning, attribute transfer, industrial fault diagnosis, supervised principal component analysis, Tennessee Eastman process, thermal power plants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review