Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemometrics

A review on autoencoder based representation learning for fault detection

and diagnosis in industrial processes
Jinchuan Qian a, Zhihuan Song a, Yuan Yao b, Zheren Zhu a, Xinmin Zhang a, *
a
State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, College of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Process monitoring technologies play a key role in maintaining the steady state of industrial processes. However,
Process monitoring with the increasing complexity of modern industrial processes, traditional monitoring methods cannot provide
Deep learning satisfactory performance. In the past decades, deep learning models have achieved rapid development in in­
Autoencoder
dustrial data analysis, especially autoencoder (AE), which has been widely used to deal with various challenges
Representation learning
of process monitoring, and a number of related works have been proposed. This paper aims to present a
comprehensive review of AE-based industrial applications, which mainly includes two parts: AE-based repre­
sentation learning and monitoring strategies, which illustrate the entire design process of AE-based monitoring
methods. In particular, AE, AE variants, and the encoder-decoder framework are briefly introduced first. Sec­
ondly, AE-based representation learning is comprehensively reviewed from the aspects of industrial data char­
acteristics. Then, the state-of-the-art studies of monitoring strategies, including fault detection strategies and
fault diagnosis strategies, are reviewed and discussed. Finally, some prospects for future research are explored.

1. Introduction
In modern industry, advances in technologies such as the Internet of
Things, cloud computing, big data analysis, and artificial intelligence
have promoted the development of intelligent manufacturing. In this era
of smart manufacturing, production needs are characterized by flexi­
bility and diversity. To meet these demands, industrial processes are
becoming increasingly complex, which also places higher demands on
the safety and reliability of the industrial process.
Process monitoring is a technology to maintain the steady operation
of industrial processes, and is the key to realizing safe production and
ensuring product quality, especially in the large-scale complex industrial
process, a minor fault may lead to a serious production loss. Process
monitoring is mainly achieved by fault detection and fault diagnosis
(FDD), and these two steps are generally performed in turn, i.e., from
whether the fault happens (fault detection) to the specific faulty variable
and fault type (fault diagnosis). However, due to the complexity of
modern industrial processes, it is difficult to use expert knowledge and
build accurate mechanical models to identify fault information directly.
In recent years, data mining technology has developed rapidly, which
makes it possible to extract industrial information and detect fault
information from the collected industrial data. In addition, due to the
development of sensors and data storage technologies, sufficient data
can be sampled and stored. These data can be used as solid data support
for training these data mining models, and further contribute to the
development of data mining technology in the industrial field.
Data-driven methods are developed based on these data mining
models and can provide an effective solution for process information and
fault information extraction in the absence of expert experience and
mechanism knowledge. Therefore, the data-driven method has become a
mainstream strategy for monitoring tasks and a hot research topic in
recent years [1–3]. Fig. 1 illustrates the general procedure of process
monitoring and the basic steps of establishing data-driven monitoring
methods to achieve the corresponding monitoring tasks.
As shown in Fig. 1, data-driven process monitoring methods can be
achieved by feature engineering and monitoring strategy. Feature en­
gineering aims to extract the feature representation that can reflect the
characteristics of processes. Although feature representation can be
directly constructed manually, it relies on expert experience and is
difficult to realize in some complex industrial processes. Some statistical
learning models, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and partial
least squares (PLS) [4,5] can map original data to the latent feature

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: qianjinchuan@zju.edu.cn (J. Qian), songzhihuan@zju.edu.cn (Z. Song), yyao@mx.nthu.edu.tw (Y. Yao), xinminzhang@zju.edu.cn (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2022.104711
Received 7 September 2022; Received in revised form 25 October 2022; Accepted 4 November 2022
Available online 10 November 2022
0169-7439/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Qian et al.
space, which contains the principal process information and signifi­
cantly reduces the burden of manual feature designing. However,
traditional statistical learning models usually require the data to meet
certain conditions such as Gaussian distribution, linear correlation, etc.
In practice, the industrial process is usually more complicated, and in­
dustrial data often show various characteristics such as dynamic corre­
lation, nonlinearity, multimode, etc., making it difficult for these
traditional models to show good application results. The deep learning
model can effectively solve this problem through multi-layer forward
mapping and has been widely used in industrial processes [6–9].
Deep learning models are mainly developed based on neural network
models. Compared with traditional statistical learning models, deep
learning models have a stronger capability of extracting the underlying
information from data and can accomplish feature engineering auto­
matically by representation learning [10,11]. Representation learning
aims to learn a mapping function that maps the raw data to a feature
space where the characteristic of the process can be better described [12,
13]. Therefore, this process can also be regarded as a feature extraction
process, and the depth of extracted features usually plays an essential
role in improving the performance of the developed process monitoring
methods.
In addition, deep learning-based feature extraction is less con­
strained by data characteristics. The structure of the deep learning
model is mainly formed by multi-layer neural networks, which can be
flexibly changed to meet different practical needs. In the process of data
forward mapping, features are continuously refined and abstracted,
which can effectively improve the performance of downstream process
monitoring tasks. After the network structure of a deep learning model is
defined, the loss function needs to be further designed to realize network
training and feature extraction. The loss function is usually determined
by reconstruction error or the loss of the downstream task. If special
feature extraction requirements are needed, the network structure or
loss function constraints can be modified accordingly. Nowadays, with
the development of deep learning frameworks and the improvement of
GPU acceleration strategies, the training and application of deep neural
networks are becoming more and more convenient in practice.
Autoencoder (AE) is a typical deep learning model designed for
learning feature representation of data in an unsupervised manner.
Fig. 1. Flowchart of process monitoring and data-driven monitoring method.
2
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
Because AE has the advantages of strong representation learning ability,
simple structure, and easy training, it has been widely used in the field of
FDD. Furthermore, to overcome different data characteristics or to force
the learned feature representations to exhibit different useful properties,
a number of AE-based variants have been developed and applied to the
FDD field. In addition, a more general AE framework, the encoder-
decoder framework, has recently been developed and attracted more
attention in academic and engineering fields. In the encoder-decoder
framework, the structures of the encoder part and decoder part can be
replaced with other deep learning modules, such as recurrent neural
network (RNN) and convolutional neural network (CNN), to extract
complex data features [14,15].
A simple experiment based on the benchmark data is presented here
to show the effectiveness of AE in fault detection applications [16]. The
fault detection rates (FDRs) of PCA, AE, denoising AE (DAE), and
contractive AE (CAE) are compared here, and Table I lists the FDRs for
21 faults. Note that all the fault alarm rates (FARs) are controlled under
5%, and the indexes are designed based on the reconstruction error and
the deviation of the obtained features. As can be seen from Table I,
compared with the traditional monitoring model PCA, AE and its vari­
ants have improved detection performance for most faults, especially in
faults 10, 16, 19, and 20, the performance is significantly improved.
In the past decades, a large number of data-driven process moni­
toring methods have been proposed. Several researchers have conducted
reviews of data-driven process monitoring methods in terms of model
types and practical applications. For example, Ge et al. [2] reviewed the
statistical learning-based process monitoring methods in plant-wise in­
dustrial processes. Qin et al. [3] systematically reviewed dynamic latent
variable analytics-based process monitoring methods. Rezaeianjouybari
et al. [12] and Khan et al. [13] presented detailed reviews about deep
learning-based prognostics and health management (PHM). Yang et al.
[17] reviewed AE-based fault diagnosis methods in mechanical equip­
ment. Different from the above literature, this paper presents a
comprehensive review of AE-based representation learning and its FDD
applications in industrial processes. In addition, it presents detailed
procedures for designing an appropriate monitoring strategy. Compared
with the existing reviews, this paper has the following contributions:
J. Qian et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711

Table 1
FDRs for 21 faults in benchmark data.
Fault no. PCA AE DAE CAE

SPE T2 SPE T2 SPE T2 SPE T2

IDV 1 0.9988 0.9913 0.9988 0.9888 1.0000 0.9913 0.9988 0.9913

IDV 2 0.9613 0.9838 0.9838 0.9800 0.9838 0.9825 0.9838 0.9838
IDV 3 0.0413 0.0113 0.0450 0.0113 0.0538 0.0075 0.0463 0.0050
IDV 4 1.0000 0.2288 1.0000 0.2850 1.0000 0.2400 1.0000 0.3188
IDV 5 0.2575 0.2388 0.3138 0.1388 0.3200 0.2138 0.3238 0.2075
IDV 6 1.0000 0.9913 1.0000 0.9813 1.0000 0.9838 1.0000 0.9875
IDV 7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9425 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9938
IDV 8 0.8838 0.9688 0.9800 0.8350 0.9788 0.9425 0.9788 0.9513
IDV 9 0.0238 0.0113 0.0400 0.0088 0.0488 0.0125 0.0400 0.0100
IDV10 0.3525 0.2800 0.5200 0.0275 0.5325 0.1013 0.5013 0.1338
IDV11 0.7863 0.4175 0.7675 0.4488 0.7975 0.3863 0.7600 0.4763
IDV12 0.9113 0.9838 0.9913 0.8000 0.9900 0.9550 0.9913 0.9600
IDV13 0.9525 0.9363 0.9525 0.7963 0.9538 0.9238 0.9525 0.9213
IDV14 1.0000 0.9925 1.0000 0.9325 1.0000 0.9738 1.0000 0.9738
IDV15 0.0425 0.0125 0.0525 0.0025 0.0600 0.0063 0.0500 0.0075
IDV16 0.3638 0.1250 0.4175 0.0138 0.4525 0.0250 0.4438 0.0575
IDV17 0.9638 0.7625 0.9600 0.6763 0.9625 0.7263 0.9625 0.7388
IDV18 0.9038 0.8925 0.9013 0.8875 0.9038 0.8888 0.9050 0.8900
IDV19 0.2025 0.1063 0.2113 0.1175 0.3100 0.1125 0.2375 0.1013
IDV20 0.5375 0.3225 0.5838 0.0738 0.6075 0.2400 0.5888 0.2200
IDV21 0.4888 0.4150 0.5050 0.3138 0.5200 0.3763 0.5288 0.3100

(1) Different AE-based representation learning strategies, such as
dynamic feature representation, multi-model feature represen­
tation, robust feature representation, target-dependent feature
representation, neighborhood sample representation learning,
etc., are summarized and classified according to the intrinsic
features of process data.
(2) Different AE-based fault detection strategies are summarized and
classified, including general fault detection strategies, multi­
modal fault detection strategies, distributed fault detection stra­
tegies, quality-related fault detection strategies, and combined
fault detection strategies.
(3) Different AE-based fault diagnosis strategies are summarized and
classified from the perspectives of fault classification and fault
identification. For fault classification, it is further classified from
the perspective of model training strategies, including pre-
training and fine-tuning, simultaneous training, and semi-
supervised training. For fault identification, it is further divided
into contribution plot, variable selection, and interpretability.
(4) Challenges and some interesting future topics are analyzed and
presented, including multimodal and heterogeneous data pro­
cessing, joint modeling with mechanism knowledge and data, and
integrated system with process recovery.
(5) This review can provide detailed technical guidance for new re­
searchers and algorithm developers in the field of process
monitoring.
with the training data, it is known that the loading matrix of PCA is
formed by the first p eigenvectors Up of Σ XX . Baldi et al. [19] proved that
when the linear AE is trained to a unique local and global minimum, the
total forward mapping weight matrix is an orthogonal projection onto
the space spanned by Up , and the corresponding weights in the encoder
and decoder can be seen as the multiplication of an invertible matrix and
Up . Daniel et al. [20] further proved that with L2 regularization, the left
singular matrix of the decoder weights in a well-trained linear AE equals
to the left singular matrix of the data matrix, which means that PCA can
be established by performing singular value decomposition (SVD) on the
decoder weights and the dimension of the principal components can be
adjusted by the strength of L2 regularization.
PCA is one of the most commonly used monitoring models, and a lot
of work has illustrated the effectiveness of PCA in the field of process
monitoring. As discussed above, linear AE is closely related to PCA in
model structure and parameters, so the two models have similar feature
extraction capabilities. However, simply using linear AE is hard to deal
with complex data mining tasks, so AE is generally used in combination
with nonlinear activation functions.
In this section, basic AE, AE variants, and a general framework called
encoder-decoder will be introduced. Fig. 2 illustrates a brief description
of these models.
2.1. Autoencoder and its variants

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, the basic
AE, AE variants, and encoder-decoder framework are briefly introduced;
Section 3 introduces the implementation methods of AE in the process of
representation learning; Section 4 and Section 5 respectively introduce
the strategies of detection and diagnosis based on the extracted features;
Section 6 gives some research prospects; Finally, conclusions are made.
2. Preliminaries
Autoencoder (AE) is a neural network model for unsupervised
feature extraction [18]. It presents a reconstruction-based learning
paradigm for feature representation learning. It should be noted that
linear AE (an AE has one hidden layer with linear activation units and no
biases) has exactly the same structure as PCA. Some researchers have
deeply explored the relationship between linear AE and PCA in model
parameters. Assuming that Σ XX denotes the covariance matrix associated
As shown in Fig. 3, the structure of AE includes an encoder and a
decoder. The encoder aims to map the original data to the feature space,
while the decoder reconstructs the input from the feature
representation.
Assuming x denotes the input, and then the encoder and decoder
functions can be described as follows:
t = σ(We x + be ) (1)
σ (Wd t + bd )
x=̂
̂ (2)
where t denotes the output of the encoder, which is the feature to be
obtained. We andbe denote the weight and bias of the encoder function,
respectively. Wd andbd denote the weight and bias of the decoder
function, respectively. σ(∗) and ̂σ (∗) denote activation functions, which
is the key for a neural network to capture nonlinear features.
Table II tabulates the descriptions of some commonly used activation

3
J. Qian et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711

Fig. 2. A brief description of AE, AE variants, and encoder-decoder framework.

Table 2
Descriptions of some commonly used activation functions.
Activation function Equation Output Output curve

Sigmoid 1 [0,1]
f(x) =
1 + e− x

Tanh ex − e− x
[-1,1]
f(x) =
ex + e− x

ReLU f(x) = max(0, x) [0, ∞]

σ (Wd σ (We x + be ) + bd )
r(x) = ̂ (3)

1 ∑N
LAE = ‖xn − r(xn )‖2 (4)
N n=1

where N is the number of training samples. The model training can be

Fig. 3. Structure of AE.
functions, including sigmoid, Tanh, and ReLU. It can be seen that both
sigmoid and Tanh have saturation areas where the gradients are close to
zero, which will cause the problem of gradient vanishing. ReLU can
provide stable gradients in the range of [0, ∞], so gradient vanishing is
avoided. Moreover, ReLU has the merits of sparsity and simple calcu­
lation, which make ReLU a widely used activation function today,
especially in some deep neural network models. However, sigmoid and
Tanh are needed when the feature outputs are required to be within a
certain range.
The reconstruction mapping function can be obtained by combining
encoder and decoder functions, as shown in equation (3). The parame­
ters in AE are trained by minimizing reconstruction error, and the loss
function is given in equation (4).
realized by gradient decent algorithm, where the gradient is calculated
by the back-propagation (BP) algorithm. In addition, some other opti­
mization algorithms such as Adam, RMSprop, etc. can also be selected to
optimize the network training process [21]. After training, the feature
mapping t can be used as a feature representation. In order to modify
traditional AE to meet different requirements of representation learning,
several modified strategies are proposed.
Traditional AE only utilizes a single-layer encoder for feature
extraction. Therefore, it is difficult for this basic model to extract deep
features. Deepening the neural network structure can be an effective
improvement strategy. Following the layer-wise learning strategy, a
number of basic AEs can be stacked together to form a stacked AE (SAE)
to extract complex features in the data [22]. Fig. 4 shows the structure
and learning strategy of SAE, where t(i) denotes the hidden output of the
ith AE. Every single AE in it is trained in turn, and the final feature
representation is obtained by mapping the input data to the deepest
hidden layer.
In addition to deepening the network structure, changing the
training loss function is another commonly used improvement strategy.
Both sparse AE and contractive AE follow this idea [23–25]. Sparse AE
adds a regularization term to constrain the activation of the hidden layer
output. More specifically, the sparse regularization equation is as
follows:

4
J. Qian et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711

Fig. 4. Structure and training strategy of SAE.

( ⃦ ) ρ 1− ρ
KL ρ⃦ρj = ρ log + (1 − ρ)log (5)
ρj 1 − ρj

nh
∑ ( ⃦ )
LSparseAE = LAE + β KL ρ⃦ρj (6)
j=1

where pj denotes the activation of the output of the jth hidden layer
node, nh denotes the number of the hidden layer nodes, and β denotes an
adjustable parameter. The regularizing term in Sparse AE can be seen as
the KL divergence between the activation of hidden outputs and the
preset probability ρ.
Contractive AE (CAE) aims to extract robust features, which is also
achieved by adding a regularization term. The training loss function is as
follows:

LCAE = LAE + λ‖Jt (x)‖2F (7)

∑( ∂tj )2
‖Jt (x)‖2F = (8)
i,j
∂xi

where the regularization term ‖Jt (x)‖2F denotes the squared Frobenius
norm of the Jacobian matrix. This regularization term constrains the
derivatives of the encoder function, which makes the feature output less
Fig. 5. Training strategy of DAE.
sensitive to the changes in the input, and thus effectively reduces the
effect of noise in the input.
Denoising AE (DAE) is also designed for robust feature extraction.
1 ∑N
However, unlike CAE, DAE introduces a denoising training strategy for LDAE = ‖r(xn + ε) − xn ‖2 (9)
N n=1
model training [26,27]. As shown in Fig. 5, in the training stage of DAE,
the input samples are firstly corrupted by artificial noises, and then DAE
where ε denotes the noise for corruption, which commonly follows a
is trained to reconstruct the uncorrupted samples. The loss function is
zero-mean Gaussian distribution. It can be seen that DAE encourages the
given by:
reconstruction mapping to eliminate noise in the input, so the learned

5
J. Qian et al. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711

DAE is more robust to noisy inputs. as follows:

Moreover, in order to achieve the deep extraction of sparse and ∫ ∫
p(z)
robust features, AE and its variants can be effectively combined through LVAE = − qθ (z|x)log pφ (x|z)dz − qθ (z|x)log dz
the layer-wise training strategy to form models like stacked denoising z z qθ (z|x) (12)
= − Eqθ (z|x) [log pφ (x|z)] + KL(qθ (z|x)‖p(z))
AE (SDAE), sparse stacked AE (sparse SAE), and so on.
where the first part of equation (12) can be seen as the reconstruction
2.2. Variational Autoencoder error and the second part denotes the KL divergence between qθ (z|x) and
the prior distribution p(z). In general, the feature output z in VAE is
Variational Autoencoder (VAE) is a generative model, which consists assumed to follow the Gaussian distribution. Thus, the output of the
of an inference network and a generation network [28], as shown in inference network contains two parts: mean μ and standard deviation σ,
Fig. 6. Unlike basic AE, the features extracted by VAE are described by a and p(z) is set to N(0, I). In addition, to realize the back-propagation of
certain form of a probability distribution, and the optimization the gradient, a re-parameter trick is further developed in VAE.
computation follows the idea of variational Bayes inference.
The optimization objective of VAE is developed from the likelihood
function, which is defined as: 2.3. Encoder-decoder framework
∑
L= log p(x) (10) It can be seen that the aforementioned basic models are achieved by
x
similar model structures and learning strategies. Thus, these models can
be generalized as a general encoder-decoder framework.
where p(x) denotes the distribution of the original data, and it can be
The encoder-decoder framework divides the model into an encoder
transformed by the following equations.
∫ part and a decoder part, and presents a flexible model construction
strategy for feature extraction. Based on this framework, the network
log p(x) = q(z|x)log p(x)dz
z structures in the encoder and decoder are not limited to the fully con­
∫
p(x, z)q(z|x) (11) nected layer (FC layer), but can also use modules such as recurrent
= q(z|x)log dz
∫z p(z|x)q(z|x) neural network (RNN), convolutional neural network (CNN) [29–33].
≥ q(z|x)log
p(x|z)p(z)
dz Moreover, this framework can be used not only for end-to-end training,
∫ z ∫q(z|x) such as the machine translation model Seq2Seq and CNN-based AE using
= q(z|x)log p(x|z)dz + q(z|x)log
p(z)
dz the deconvolution layer, but also for unsupervised feature extraction via
z z q(z|x) reconstruction loss [34–36]. Fig. 7 illustrates a schematic of the
∫ encoder-decoder framework.
p(x|z)p(z)
where z q(z|x)log q(z|x) dz is named as evidence lower bound (ELBO), In practical industrial processes, complex industrial information such
and the likelihood maximization is optimized by maximizing ELBO. VAE as dynamic and spatial features commonly exist, which will seriously
provides an effective solution for solving this optimization problem, affect the performance of traditional models. Based on the general
where q(z|x) and p(x|z) are estimated by neural networks, namely, encoder-decoder framework, the modules in the encoder part and
inference network and generative network. The parameters in these two decoder part can be selected and combined to effectively deal with these
parts are denoted as θ and φ , respectively. Therefore, q(z|x) and p(x|z) complex feature extraction tasks. Table III briefly lists the application of
are further denoted as qθ (z|x) and pφ (x|z), and the loss function is given different network modules.

Fig. 6. Structure of VAE.

6
J. Qian et al.
Fig. 7. Encoder-decoder framework.
Table 3
Module and its application.
Module Application
FC layer nonlinear feature extraction
CNN spatial/temporal information extraction
RNN dynamic representation learning
3. Representation learning
Representation learning aims to learn the feature representation that
can reflect the intrinsic characteristics of data through a model mapping.
In the industrial application, the feature obtained by representation
learning can be seen as an abstract representation of industrial knowl­
edge. The extracted features are hard to interpret, but compared with
the original variables, these features can present a more accurate
description about the changes in process information. The accurate
capture of these changes can effectively guide the downstream tasks, e.
g., fault detection can be achieved through detecting abnormal devia­
tion, and fault classification can be achieved by extracting differences in
different operation conditions. Therefore, representation learning is an
important step for developing subsequent monitoring strategies.
As a common unsupervised feature extraction model, AE has a strong
nonlinear feature extraction ability and has been widely used for
extracting complex industrial features. However, in practice, industrial
data generally show various characteristics such as nonlinearity, multi-
mode, and dynamics. Therefore, in order to deal with various charac­
teristics in industrial data, ensure the completeness of the obtained
features, and provide effective feature representation for monitoring
tasks, the basic AE needs to be further improved. The commonly used
improvement ideas mainly include two parts: the improvement of
training strategy and the improvement of model structure. This section
will introduce and summarize the research status of AE-based repre­
sentation learning in the industrial process according to the different
requirements of feature extraction. Fig. 8 illustrates the framework of
AE-based representation learning for industrial processes.
7
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
3.1. Dynamic feature representation
Process dynamics are widely present in industrial processes and are
mainly caused by process mechanisms and control loops, and this pro­
cess characteristic is mainly manifested in the autocorrelation between
samples. Therefore, traditional static feature extraction methods cannot
obtain valid dynamic features. Some researchers combined AE or its
variants with traditional dynamic models such as autoregressive model
[37], Kalman filter [38], and slow feature analysis (SFA) [39] to achieve
the representation learning in the dynamic process.
Another commonly used solution to this problem is serializing the
original samples to sequences and training the model using these se­
quences. Jiang et al. [40] flattened the transformed sequences and used
sparse SAE to extract dynamic features. Yin et al. [41] utilized mutual
information to select the most relevant samples to the current time
samples, and eliminated irrelevant variables in these selected samples,
which effectively optimized the sequence construction and reduced the
redundancy. Following a similar idea, Agarwal et al. [42] utilized
layer-wise relevance propagation between the original variables and
hidden features to simplify the model structure and improve the inter­
pretation of the model. Li et al. [43] concatenated the current sample
with the weighted sum of its temporal neighborhoods to perform the
subsequent dynamic feature extraction.
In addition, based on the encoder-decoder framework, modifying the
module in each part can also enable AE to realize dynamic representa­
tion learning. Replacing the encoder and decoder parts with RNN or its
variants is a widely used strategy. Ren et al. [44] utilized LSTM to
construct the encoder-decoder model to achieve feature extraction in the
dynamic process. Cheng et al. [45] utilized VAE for further feature
extraction on the features obtained by Seq2Seq. Moreover, time series
can also be viewed as a two-dimension image, where the second
dimension denotes time, so CNN can also be used as an improvement for
dynamic feature extraction, where the decoder part is constructed by a
deconvolution operation. Based on this idea, Kanno et al. [46] proposed
a CNN-AE structure and added a DAE for deep extraction of process
features. Liu et al. [47] combined the attention mechanism to integrate
the relevant information into the sequential data to modify the structure
of the CNN-based AE. Maggipinto et al. [48] combined variable selection
J. Qian et al.
Fig. 8. Framework of AE-based representation learning for industrial processes.
to select the most efficient features obtained by AE and reduce the model
redundancy. One dimension CNN (1DCNN) is a special form of CNN
designed for dealing with time series. Based on the framework of
encoder-decoder, various studies have been proposed using the 1DCNN
module [49–52].
3.2. Multimode feature representation
In some industrial processes, switching between multiple operating
conditions is required, which makes the process data show the multi­
modal characteristic. From the perspective of data distribution, the
multimode data are concentrated in several local areas. Traditional
multimode feature extraction methods generally cluster the data into
several categories in the first stage, and then process the data in each
category separately. The same strategy can be achieved by combining
AE. For example, Gao et al. [53] proposed a hierarchical mode identi­
fication method to separate the multimode industrial data, and used
SDAE to extract the features of the data of a single mode. In addition, AE
has a number of hidden nodes, and each node can be selectively acti­
vated according to the types of input data. Therefore, it is achievable to
use different nodes of AE or its variants to describe different operation
modes. Zhou et al. [54] visualized the feature outputs of the Sparse
SDAE when using a set of multimode data as training data, and the re­
sults show that some of the hidden features can obviously reflect the
operation mode information.
To make AE perform a more effective and stable multimode
8
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
representation learning, the improvements in model structure and
training strategy should be made for guiding the network to explore the
information about different operation modes. The most commonly used
strategy is to incorporate sparse regularization into the loss function, as
it can restrict the activation degree of nodes during the multimode
training so that hidden layer nodes can be selectively activated [54,55].
Besides, Lu et al. [56] designed a regularization for mode elimination to
reduce the influence of mode change, and they further utilized the Fisher
criterion to increase the sensitivity of features to fault information.
Wang et al. [57] designed a network structure based on two SAEs for
extracting mode-common features and mode-specific features. In addi­
tion, combining with traditional clustering models such as the Gaussian
mixture model (GMM) can also effectively improve the multimode
representation learning ability of AE and its variants. Zhou et al. [58]
proposed a joint training strategy by combining the reconstruction loss
with the optimization objection of GMM. Tang et al. [59] utilized GMM
as a prior distribution of the hidden output, which improved the ability
of VAE to deal with multimode data.
3.3. Robust feature representation
Data pollution will hide the process information underlying the data,
making it challenging to achieve valid representation learning. More­
over, as mentioned above, the extracted feature representation can
effectively capture the changes in the process operation. However, when
the collected data are seriously polluted, the detected changes might
J. Qian et al.
cause by the defect of input data rather than the fault information, which
will seriously affect the FDD performance. Data pollution is common in
practice, so it should be considered when designing a representation
learning strategy.
Industrial data are easily affected by the noise in the process. In
addition, when the performance of sensors and data acquisition systems
degrades, the quality of the collected data also degrades, resulting in the
problems of outliers and missing data. Thus, robust feature representa­
tion learning is necessary for solving these problems.
DAE is trained by a corrupted reconstruction task, which makes DAE
more robust to the noise corruption, and thus, various studies have been
proposed to deal with process noise based on DAE [60–65]. Besides, Hu
et al. [66] proposed a low-rank reconstruction strategy for AE training,
aiming to deal with the problems of noise pollution and outliers. As for
the problem of missing data, Choudhury et al. [67] utilized K-means for
missing data imputation, and then used these imputed data to complete
feature extraction. McCoy et al. [68] proposed a VAE-based iterative
algorithm to impute the missing data, where the reconstruction error is
used for measuring the accuracy of the imputation. Ba-Alawi et al. [69]
further combined VAE with ResNet to improve the imputing accuracy
and help the model extract some more complex features underlying the
industrial data.
3.4. Target relevant representation learning
Target relevant features refer to the features that are highly related to
target variables, such as fault labels, key performance indicators, etc.,
which are more effective for the downstream tasks and can help to
construct the fault detection methods with special requirements. The
representation learning for target relevant features aims to add target
information in the feature extraction process, which can be achieved
through the target variable-based supervised learning. However, in
some processes, the target variables are difficult to measure or have
much lower sample rates, so semi-supervised target relevant feature
representation learning strategies are also considered.
During the representation learning process, the information in the
fault data or fault labels can supervise the network to extract some fault-
relevant features. One of the commonly used solutions to achieve it is to
add a structure for label prediction, like the softmax layer, and add a
prediction error part to the loss function [70–73]. Wang et al. [71]
added a fault label prediction part to the layer-wise training of SAE,
which makes every single AE in it contains fault information. Yan et al.
[73] augmented the fault samples with fault labels to increase the
discrimination between different fault features. Besides, some studies
further combined feature selection or variable selection strategies to
establish the relationship between features and fault information. Pan
et al. [74] separated all the hidden nodes into several groups to deal with
different faults. Yin et al. [75] utilized mutual information to select the
fault-related variables to better extract fault-related features. Zhang
et al. [76] combined Wasserstein distance to minimize the difference
between the feature output distributions of labeled and unlabeled
samples to enable the integration of fault information into the extracted
features.
The representation learning for key performance index relevant
features can also be realized by similar ideas. Yan et al. [77–79] com­
bined AE with a traditional quality prediction model to extract the
quality-relevant features. Wang et al. [80] proposed a VAE-based sem­
i-supervised model for quality-relevant feature extraction. Tang et al.
[81] modified the loss function of VAE to maximize the mutual infor­
mation between the hidden outputs and the quality variables. Zhu et al.
[82] separated the features obtained by VAE into a quality-relevant part
and a quality-irrelevant part, which can be further used for
quality-related fault detection tasks.
9
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
3.5. Learning from neighborhood samples
Neighborhood samples can be obtained by similarity measurement,
and these samples usually contain similar features and attributes. Rep­
resentation learning with these neighborhood samples can help models
explore the intrinsic geometrical information and local information in
the industrial data.
Some manifold learning methods can be used to extract information
from neighborhood samples, and one of the strategies is to perform
further feature extraction in the features obtained by AE. He et al. [83]
combined discrimination locality preserving projections and sparse AE
for global and local information extraction. Lu et al. [84] performed
t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) on the features
obtained by AE to achieve better feature visualization. Another solution
is to construct a neighborhood sample-related regularization and add it
to the loss function. Wang et al. [85] constructed a locality preserving
projections-based regularization for reducing the distance between
neighborhood samples to extract local information. Yu et al. [86] con­
structed a manifold regularization to guide AE to extract the information
from the neighborhood samples. Zhang et al. [87] further utilized
manifold regularization in the CNN-based AE to capture intrinsic data
information.
4. Fault detection
The aim of fault detection is to extract the fault information and
establish an index to indicate the occurrence of a fault. As discussed
above, the features obtained by AE can effectively describe the process
information and evaluate the operation state of the process after a valid
representation learning, so fault detection can be achieved by analyzing
these obtained features.
A general strategy for AE-based fault detection is to measure the
deviation of extracted features between the current operation state and
the normal state. The magnitude of reconstruction error can also be used
as a fault detection index. Moreover, based on this general strategy, a
number of works have been improved to meet different requirements of
fault detection. In this section, a detailed review of AE-based fault
detection is given, including the general strategy and some modified
strategies for fault detection. The procedure of industrial fault detection
and the framework of AE-based fault detection strategies are briefly
illustrated in Fig. 9.
4.1. General fault detection strategies
The most general strategy for the fault detection task is to construct a
fault index and set the control limit. If the fault index of the online
sample exceeds the control limit, the fault is considered to have
occurred, otherwise, the process is in a normal state. The fault index
used here is a measure of the difference between the current operation
state and the normal state. The AE used for fault detection is generally
trained by a set of normal state data, so when a fault sample is used as
input, the AE cannot reconstruct it effectively, resulting in a large
reconstruction error. In addition, the features will also show deviation
compared with that in a normal state. Therefore, the fault information
can be reflected by the reconstruction error and the deviation of feature
outputs.
According to the above analysis, Yan et al. [65] constructed two fault
indexes, SPE and H2, based on AE and its variants, where SPE is used to
indicate the reconstruction error and H2 is used to measure the
magnitude of the feature outputs. Jiang et al. [64] constructed SPE and
T2 fault indexes, which are similar to PCA-based fault indexes. The
analysis results show that SPE is more sensitive to fault information
when DAE is used. As mentioned in the previous section, AE can be
modified to meet different requirements of representation learning, but
the structures of its modifications generally contain two parts: feature
mapping and reconstruction. Therefore, the same idea of fault index
J. Qian et al.
Fig. 9. Framework of AE-based fault detection.
construction can be used in those modified AE-based variants [88–94].
In addition, in the framework of the encoder-decoder, the modules in
each part can be changed to RNN or CNN, but the fault indexes based on
these models can also be constructed through the general strategy
[95–99]. Yu et al. [95] proposed a ConvLSTM module to form the
encoder part and decoder part, and constructed two indexes to measure
the deviation of the features and reconstruction error. Kanno et al. [96]
constructed T2 and SPE based on CNN-based AE for fault detection tasks
in a dynamic process. Toikka et al. [97] improved AE using LSTM, in
which SPE is constructed for fault detection.
From the literature and analysis mentioned above, the fault indexes
are mainly used to analyze the fault information in the feature space and
the residual space. The fault index of residual space in each work is
relatively simple, because the reconstruction error is sufficient to reflect
the fault information [64,100–103]. In the feature space, the fault in­
formation can be reflected in the magnitude of the feature outputs, such
as H2. However, a more common strategy to measure the deviation in
feature space is to calculate the distance to the normal feature outputs.
For example, Euclidean distance [88,104] and Mahalanobis distance
[39,47,50,66,87,103,105] are utilized to indicate the fault information.
In addition, combining the idea of KNN is also a suitable strategy for
analyzing the fault information. Because after mapping the data into
these two spaces, the distance to the neighborhood samples in the
training dataset will get larger when a fault happens, so the KNN dis­
tance can be used for fault detection [106–108].
The hidden outputs of VAE are different from traditional AE, so the
construction of the fault indexes should be changed accordingly. Zhang
et al. [109] utilized VAE to obtain a set of Gaussian distributed features
and combined them with the variance of normal state data to construct
an index for analyzing the fault information in feature space. Wang et al.
[110] utilized the parameters of mean and standard deviation obtained
by VAE to calculate the KL divergence between the standard Gaussian
distributions to measure the deviation in the feature space, while in the
residual space, they further combined with the obtained standard de­
viation to deal with the uncertainty in the industrial process. Bi et al.
[111] directly utilized the loss function of VAE as the fault detection
index, because the loss function of VAE mainly includes a reconstruction
error and a KL divergence between the feature distribution and the
standard Gaussian distribution. This index can be regarded as an inte­
grated index to analyze the fault information in both feature space and
residual space.
In practical applications, the setting of the control limit is another
key step. When using traditional linear models, the control limit can be
determined by using the probability distribution functions (PDF) of
10
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
some common probability distributions like Gaussian distribution, chi-
square distribution, and F distribution. However, after the feature
mapping and reconstruction of AE, some assumptions will be violated
and those commonly used distributions cannot be used to determine the
control limit. Kernel density estimation (KDE) can fit the PDF of the
index values under normal conditions without assuming the data dis­
tribution, so this method can be used to solve this problem [112,113].
In addition, one-class methods such as support vector data descrip­
tion (SVDD) and one-class neural network [114–116], as well as isola­
tion forest [117,118], can also be used as fault detection strategies. The
merit of these methods is that they do not need to construct some spe­
cific fault detection indexes, and only need to map the data to the feature
space and the residual space using the trained AE and its variants.
Moreover, if the faulty samples are included in the training dataset,
using AE to train a two-class classification network is also a feasible
solution [119–121].
4.2. Multimode fault detection strategies
The multimode process usually includes various operation states,
and when the multimode features are fully extracted by AE, the general
strategy can be used directly for fault detection. To further improve the
performance of fault detection, some work has been developed accord­
ing to the characteristics of the multimode process. Wu et al. [122]
utilized local adaptive standardization for data preprocessing and pro­
posed a VAE-BiLSTM model for multimode feature extraction, where the
fault index used here is based on the loss function of VAE. Tang et al.
[59] modified VAE by replacing the prior distribution with a Gaussian
mixture distribution, and integrated the features of each mode to
construct the index in the feature space. In the residual space, the
reconstruction error is also used as a fault index.
In addition, it is also a feasible solution to construct fault indexes for
a single operation mode. Gao et al. [53] established an SDAE-based fault
detection model, in which the hierarchical mode identification method
was first used to identify the transient state and steady state of the
process, and then the SPE index was used for fault detection in each
state. Wang et al. [57] constructed fault indexes for mode-specific fea­
tures and mode-common features and an SPE-based global index for
multimode process fault detection.
4.3. Distributed fault detection strategies
The distributed strategy is established to solve problems in large-
scale industrial processes. Data sampled from the large-scale industrial
J. Qian et al.
process are usually high dimensional, which brings the time consump­
tion of model training and online fault detection. Moreover, modern
industrial processes have the characteristics of modularization, and the
construction of models and detection indexes for a single module can
help to determine the location of faults.
A commonly used distributed strategy is to separate the whole var­
iables into several blocks, and perform model training and fault detec­
tion for each block separately. Li et al. [123] performed the variable
separation according to the practical operation units and trained SAE for
each block. They further constructed fault indexes in each SAE to indi­
cate the fault information in each unit and a global index for the fault
detection of the whole process.
The coupling between operation units should also be considered
when modeling the process and establishing distributed fault detection
strategies. When the units are strongly related to each other, the fault
information will be propagated among the units, affecting the detection
performance. Therefore, the influence between units needs to be
extracted to solve this problem. Chen et al. [124] proposed a novel index
for fault detection in a single unit, and the influence from the neigh­
boring units is also considered. Huang et al. [125] modified VAE to
extract the impact of neighboring units and constructed a Euclidean
distance-based fault detection index.
4.4. Quality-related fault detection strategies
The quality variable is directly related to product quality, so it is
always the most concerned variable in the industrial processes. How­
ever, the sampling rate of the quality variable is much lower than that of
the process variable measurements, so directly monitoring the fluctua­
tion of the quality variable cannot detect quality-related faults in time.
Quality-related information is also contained in the process variable
measurements, and the aforementioned target-related representation
learning can be used to extract this part of the information. To effec­
tively use these quality-related features and achieve accurate fault
detection, a number of AE-based quality-related fault detection methods
have been proposed. Yan et al. [77] designed a supervised dual SAE for
quality-related feature extraction, and the obtained features are further
divided into a quality-related part and a quality-unrelated part using
principal component regression (PCR). Then, T2-based fault detection
indexes are constructed in these two parts. Tang et al. [81] combined
VAE and DeepVIB algorithms to separate the obtained features into a
quality-related part and a quality-unrelated part, and constructed
T2-based indexes for quality-related fault detection. Yan et al. [78]
constructed a detection index named Ty in the proposed quality-driven
AE to describe the fault information in the quality-related features.
Wang et al. [80] proposed a semi-supervised quality-related VAE and
constructed a fault detection index based on the quality prediction error.
4.5. Combined fault detection strategies
AE has a powerful capability of unsupervised feature extraction, but
the features obtained by AE have weak interpretability. When facing
detection tasks with special requirements, it is difficult to select the
feasible features for constructing a fault detection strategy. Traditional
models like PCA, PLS, and SFA can simply and quickly realize feature
extraction with special requirements such as orthogonal, the decompo­
sition of dynamic and static features, etc. However, if the industrial
process is complex, these methods may not be able to give a good per­
formance. Therefore, some researchers developed some improved AE-
based fault detection methods by combining AE with traditional
models [126–132].
Agarwal et al. [126] combined Sparse AE with multiway PLS and
multiway PCA for the fault detection task in the batch process. Wang
et al. [127] proposed a novel dynamic VAE and performed PCA on the
concatenated result of raw variables, and extracted features for fault
detection. Yu et al. [129] first utilized Kernel SFA to extract static
11
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
features and dynamic features, and then trained SAE and RNN-LSTM
using these two types of features, respectively. Finally, fault detection
is achieved by a Bayesian information criterion (BIC)-based integrated
index.
From the perspective of representation learning, this combination
can further optimize the features obtained by AE. Moreover, the detec­
tion strategy used in the traditional models can also be used here, and
only the method of determining the control limit needs to be changed.
5. Fault diagnosis
Fault diagnosis is performed after fault detection, which is used to
extract some more specific fault information like fault label, faulty
location, etc. Fault classification and fault identification are two types of
commonly used fault diagnosis approaches, and they output different
fault information. Fault classification can output the fault type, and fault
identification is used to identify the faulty variable.
Since neural networks are more suitable for end-to-end training, a
number of deep learning-based fault diagnosis works have been
designed for fault classification tasks. Among them, AE plays an
important role in the development of the semi-supervised fault classi­
fication methods. In addition, by combining the idea of contribution
index and variable selection, some AE-based fault identification
methods have also been developed for identifying the fault variable in
complex industrial processes. Fig. 10 briefly illustrates the framework
and categories of AE-based fault diagnosis.
5.1. Fault classification
In general, the network structure of fault classification mainly in­
cludes two parts: a feature mapping part and a label prediction part. The
label prediction part is mainly realized by a softmax layer, which is
calculated as
( ) ehj
softmax hj = ∑ h (13)
ie
i
where hi denotes the output of the ith node, and the softmax layer
converts the input value into the probability of belonging to the ith
category.
The procedures of AE-based fault classification application are
shown in Fig. 11 and two strategies can be used to achieve it. The first
one is training AE for unsupervised feature extraction, and then, the
weights obtained at this stage is used as initialization for further su­
pervised fine-tuning. The other is training these two parts simulta­
neously. This strategy can guide AE to extract fault-related features, and
the prediction part can be directly used for classification tasks after
training.
Based on the training strategies shown in Fig. 11, a number of fault
classification works have been developed. For example, Chopra et al.
[133] utilized a sparse AE for unsupervised feature extraction and then
combined the fine-tuning strategy to implement the fault classification
task. In Ref. [134], DAE is first employed to extract robust features of the
data, and then the fault classification model is fine-tuned. Qiu et al.
[135] first utilized SAE to extract the complex features lying in the in­
dustrial data, and then fine-tuning was performed to train a fault clas­
sification model for a chemical process. Wang et al. [71] utilized labeled
data for fault-related feature extraction, and further fine-tuned the
prediction part by supervised training. He et al. [136] proposed a deep
VAE-based diagnosis model, where the two parts are trained simulta­
neously, and they further developed an unseen fault detection method
based on this model.
For extracting dynamic features in the industrial process, based on
the encoder-decoder framework, the diagnosis model is further modified
by CNN and RNN. Li et al. [137] proposed a CNN-DAE based fault
diagnosis model for the fault diagnosis task in the distillation process.
J. Qian et al.
Fig. 10. Framework of AE-based fault diagnosis.
Fig. 11. Training strategies for AE-based classification method.
Chen et al. [49] utilized 1DCNN-based AE for unsupervised feature
extraction, and further developed a diagnosis model by supervised
fine-tuning. Yu et al. [72] utilized labeled data for the training of
CNN-based AE, which can help to extract fault-relevant features, and the
classifier structure can be directly used for fault classification. Moreover,
many strategies, such as adding a specially designed regularization
[138] and combining neighborhood samples [139] for AE training,
combining the ideas of ensemble learning to achieve the fusion of the
features obtained by multiple AEs [140], and using transfer learning to
modify AE-based unsupervised learning [141,142], can also be used for
improving the performance of AE-based fault classification.
The training of weights in the feature mapping part and the label
prediction part can be performed independently, so the AE-based clas­
sification methods can be easily extended to semi-supervised forms,
which is meaningful for the fault labels that are usually rare in practice.
Jiang et al. [40] proposed a dynamic sparse SAE for semi-supervised
fault classification, where both unlabeled and labeled data are used
for unsupervised training, and only the labeled data is used for super­
vised fine-tuning. Zhang et al. [143] proposed an LSTM ladder AE for
semi-supervised chemical process fault diagnosis. Zhang et al. [76]
improved the performance of AE-based semi-supervised fault diagnosis
12
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
by using the sinkhorn distance-based regularization.
5.2. Fault identification
The faulty variable diagnosed by the fault identification methods can
be seen as more specific fault information of the fault location, which is
also known as fault isolation. The identification results are shown by a
set of contribution indexes that indicate the relevance between the
process variables and the occurred fault.
Since the structures of AE and PCA are similar, PCA-based fault
identification methods like contribution plot and reconstruction-based
contribution (RBC) can be utilized in AE for fault identification tasks.
The basic idea of the contribution plot is to divide the fault detection
index into various parts, and each part is only related to a single vari­
able, where the faulty variable is considered to have a higher contri­
bution value [144]. Taking SPE as an example, the following equation
shows the basic strategy for constructing an AE-based contribution plot.
∑
m
x ‖2 =
‖x − ̂ x i )2
(xi − ̂ (14)
i=1
where xi and ̂
x i denote the ith variable of the input sample x and its
J. Qian et al.
reconstructed value ̂ x , and each part (xi − ̂ x i )2 can be seen as the
contribution of the ith variable to the value of the fault detection index.
Following the idea of the contribution plot shown above, a number of
AE-based fault identification methods have been proposed. For example,
Hallgrímsson et al. [145] constructed a contribution plot on the sparse
AE. Cheng et al. [94] established a SAE-based contribution rate, which is
a normalized contribution plot that is used in a chiller system. To deal
with the dynamic process, Toikka et al. [97] established a contribution
plot based on the LSTM-AE. Jiang et al. [132] further established a
contribution plot on the proposed two-dimensional deep correlated
model, which combines SAE and canonical correlation analysis (CCA)
for batch process monitoring.
Contribution plot is an efficient method for fault identification and is
easy to construct. However, the diagnosis result of the contribution plot
is easily affected by the smearing effect, which is mainly caused by the
forward propagation of fault information in the model. Acala et al. [146]
analyzed the diagnosability of the contribution plot and proposed RBC
to address this problem. The contribution index of RBC is optimized by
fault reconstruction, which can effectively suppress the smearing effect.
Due to the similarity in the structures of AE and PCA, the smearing effect
will also affect the performance of the AE-based contribution plot.
Therefore, based on the idea of RBC, several fault identification works
have been developed. Qian et al. [147] established an RBC-based
contribution index based on AE and a local linearization strategy, and
they further proposed a modified method by using an adaptive corre­
lation weight and a hidden output estimation [148]. Tang et al. [149]
proposed a novel RBC-based method, which is constructed on VAE and
uses the branch and bound strategy to accelerate the diagnosis process.
In addition, some studies utilized the variable selection method to
realize fault variable identification. Dong et al. [150] utilized LASSO to
identify the fault relevant variable. Yu et al. [60] proposed an elastic
network-based method to improve the identification performance.
Moreover, fault identification can be seen as a procedure of interpreting
the key causes of the detected fault, so the interpretability method can
also be used to develop fault identification methods. Peng et al. [120]
proposed a smooth integrated gradients-based method to diagnose
faulty variables. Kanno et al. [46] utilized Grad-CAM to describe the
importance of variables to the detected fault type.
6. Prospects
The above literature has reviewed the application of AE in repre­
sentation learning, fault detection, and fault diagnosis in modern in­
dustrial processes. However, with the rapid upgrading of industrial
production demands, the industrial mechanism is becoming more and
more complex, which brings great challenges to data-driven process
modeling and fault information extraction. AE has constructed a general
framework for feature extraction of process data with different charac­
teristics, and AE-based monitoring strategies have great prospects in
dealing with the challenges of modern industrial applications. In this
section, some prospects for future research directions are discussed.
6.1. Multimodal and heterogeneous data processing
Nowadays, various kinds of sensors are installed for monitoring the
process operation state. Instead of traditional process measurements like
flow, temperature, pressure, etc., some different data types like images,
vibration signals, and acoustic data are also recorded which makes the
industrial dataset show the characteristics of multimodal and hetero­
geneous. All of these data contain useful process information, for
example, in the task of subsurface defect detection, the image data of the
surface picture are more helpful [151–153]. However, in order to
develop a higher-performance FDD method, various data needs to be
fully utilized, which requires different data descriptions, and it is diffi­
cult to manage the information extraction using only a single model.
13
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
Thanks to the encoder-decoder framework, AE-based feature
extraction methods can be generalized to handle different data types.
For example, traditional AE can deal with process measurements, and
after combining CNN, 1DCNN, and RNN, AE can perform feature
extraction using images, vibration signals, and acoustic data [151–155].
Therefore, when facing multimodal and heterogeneous data, AE-based
methods are feasible in data representation learning tasks. However,
how to achieve the fusion of all these extracted features and how to
develop the monitoring strategy based on these features are the key
problems that need to be solved. Moreover, the development of an in­
tegrated AE-based feature extraction framework for multimodal and
heterogeneous data is also expected.
Up to now, little work has been proposed for this problem, but ad­
vances in this field can significantly improve the performance of the
monitoring methods.
6.2. Joint modeling with mechanism knowledge and data
Deep learning models are essentially learning feature representations
from the given training data, so if the training data does not contain
sufficient process information or the collected industrial data does not
cover all the operation regions, the trained model will show a lack of
generalization. Mechanism knowledge, which can be obtained through
expert experience and process prior knowledge, is a generalized inter­
pretation of process information and plays an important role in process
modeling and fault diagnosis. However, mechanism knowledge is rarely
considered in the development of traditional data-driven fault diagnosis
methods, especially in the deep learning-based methods. As mentioned
above, the features obtained by a neural network like AE are hard to
interpret, which makes the performance unstable in some applications.
The mechanism knowledge can provide a robust description of the
process, so with its help, deep learning-based fault diagnosis methods
can give a more stable performance without complex parameter
adjustment. In addition, the features extracted by the deep learning
model are usually abstract, and it is difficult to give interpretable in­
formation of the process, while the mechanism knowledge can effec­
tively explain the operation state of the process, so it can also be used as
supervision to guild the network to extract more interpretable features.
On the other hand, the powerful feature extraction ability of the deep
learning model indicates that it has the potential to mine the informa­
tion of the internal mechanism of the industrial process. If the abstract
features can be described in an interpretable way, it can be regarded as
an effective solution to extend and refine process knowledge.
6.3. Integrated system with the process recovery
The development of process monitoring methods has mainly focused
on fault detection and fault diagnosis tasks, while process recovery is
rarely considered. Process recovery is generally performed after the fault
detection and fault diagnosis stages, and the purpose is to recover the
faulty part of the process under the guidance of the obtained fault in­
formation. For process recovery, some specific manipulations generally
need to be performed. With the improvement of automation in modern
industrial processes, manipulations can be easily achieved automati­
cally, which makes it possible to realize an integrated monitoring system
with automatic process recovery. The key to realizing it is to develop a
matching mechanism between fault information and the corresponding
manipulation.
When the fault types that occurred previously have been stored in the
fault knowledge base, the fault recovery manipulation can be deter­
mined based on the predicted fault label. However, if a novel fault type
occurs, the same strategy will not be effective. In this situation, a good
data representation of the fault is expected, which can indicate more
specific fault attributes such as fault location, fault unit, etc.
As can be seen from the AE-based pre-training in fault diagnosis task,
AE has the ability to extract fault information lying in the fault data.
J. Qian et al.
However, when the extracted features are used to match the recovery
manipulation, they should be able to reflect the commonness and
uniqueness of different faults. While at the same time, the features are
also expected to be discriminative, so that the determination of recovery
manipulation can be more easily achieved.
Additionally, each recovery manipulation can be represented by a
sparse vector, such as the one-hot vector. These sparse vectors can be
used to guide the network to extract the required fault information, and
when the network is well trained, the specific manipulation can be ob­
tained through a data mapping. AE and the encoder-decoder framework
have the potential to realize it.
7. Conclusion
A detailed review of AE-based representation learning, fault detec­
tion, and fault diagnosis is presented in this paper. As a popular deep
learning model, AE can be used for unsupervised feature extraction
without the need to manually construct features. To improve the per­
formance of feature extraction, the basic AE is modified to several var­
iants such as SAE, DAE, Sparse AE, etc. Moreover, AE can be further
extended to an encoder-decoder framework, where the modules in the
encoder and decoder parts can be changed. This framework enables AE
to deal with different data types and meet specific feature extraction
requirements.
In addition, this paper reviews the AE-based representation learning
from the aspects of process characteristics and feature extraction stra­
tegies, which are also the key considerations for the development of
process monitoring models. Effective data representation is the prereq­
uisite for improving monitoring performance, but to complete the final
monitoring tasks, effective monitoring strategies are also needed.
Therefore, according to the different monitoring tasks and model
structures, this paper further summarizes the state-of-the-art monitoring
strategies in fault detection and fault diagnosis applications. At last,
some prospects are given for future research. It is believed that AE-based
models have great potential to help modern monitoring systems be more
automatic and intelligent.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 61933013, 61833014) and in part by
the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant No.
LQ21F030018).
References
[1] S.J. Qin, Survey on data-driven industrial process monitoring and diagnosis[J],
Annu. Rev. Control 36 (2) (2012) 220–234.
[2] Z. Ge, Review on data-driven modeling and monitoring for plant-wide industrial
processes[J], Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 171 (2017) 16–25.
[3] S.J. Qin, Y. Dong, Q. Zhu, et al., Bridging systems theory and data science: a
unifying review of dynamic latent variable analytics and process monitoring[J],
Annu. Rev. Control 50 (2020) 29–48.
[4] B. De Ketelaere, M. Hubert, E. Schmitt, Overview of PCA-based statistical process-
monitoring methods for time-dependent, high-dimensional data[J], J. Qual.
Technol. 47 (4) (2015) 318–335.
[5] J. Dong, K. Zhang, Y. Huang, et al., Adaptive total PLS based quality-relevant
process monitoring with application to the Tennessee Eastman process[J],
Neurocomputing 154 (2015) 77–85.
14
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
[6] S. Gao, Y. Dai, Y. Li, et al., Augmented flame image soft sensor for combustion
oxygen content prediction, Measurement Science and Technology 34 (1) (2023)
015401, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/ac95b5.
[7] L. Yao, Z. Ge, Cooperative deep dynamic feature extraction and variable time-
delay estimation for industrial quality prediction[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 17 (6)
(2020) 3782–3792.
[8] Y. Liu, C. Yang, Z. Gao, et al., Ensemble deep kernel learning with application to
quality prediction in industrial polymerization processes[J], Chemometr. Intell.
Lab. Syst. 174 (2018) 15–21.
[9] Y. Liu, Y. Fan, J. Chen, Flame images for oxygen content prediction of combustion
systems using DBN[J], Energy Fuel. 31 (8) (2017) 8776–8783.
[10] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning[J], Nature 521 (7553) (2015)
436–444.
[11] G.E. Hinton, R.R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural
networks[J], Science 313 (5786) (2006) 504–507.
[12] B. Rezaeianjouybari, Y. Shang, Deep learning for prognostics and health
management: state of the art, challenges, and opportunities, [J]. Measurement
163 (2020), 107929.
[13] S. Khan, T. Yairi, A review on the application of deep learning in system health
management[J], Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 107 (2018) 241–265.
[14] T. Mikolov, M. Karafiát, L. Burget, et al., Recurrent neural network based
language model[C], Interspeech 2 (3) (2010) 1045–1048.
[15] J. Gu, Z. Wang, J. Kuen, et al., Recent advances in convolutional neural networks
[J], Pattern Recogn. 77 (2018) 354–377.
[16] S. Yin, S.X. Ding, A. Haghani, et al., A comparison study of basic data-driven fault
diagnosis and process monitoring methods on the benchmark Tennessee Eastman
process[J], J. Process Control 22 (9) (2012) 1567–1581.
[17] Z. Yang, B. Xu, W. Luo, et al., Autoencoder-based representation learning and its
application in intelligent fault diagnosis: a review[J], Measurement (2021),
110460.
[18] Y. Bengio, A. Courville, P. Vincent, Representation learning: a review and new
perspectives[J], IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35 (8) (2013) 1798–1828.
[19] P. Baldi, K. Hornik, Neural networks and principal component analysis: learning
from examples without local minima, [J]. Neural netw. 2 (1) (1989) 53–58.
[20] D. Kunin, J. Bloom, A. Goeva, et al., Loss Landscapes of Regularized Linear
autoencoders[C]//International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019,
pp. 3560–3569.
[21] F. Zou, L. Shen, Z. Jie, et al., A Sufficient Condition for Convergences of Adam and
rmsprop[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 11127–11135.
[22] Y. Bengio, P. Lamblin, D. Popovici, et al., Greedy layer-wise training of deep
networks[J], Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 19 (2006).
[23] J. Xu, L. Xiang, Q. Liu, et al., Stacked sparse autoencoder (SSAE) for nuclei
detection on breast cancer histopathology images[J], IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 35
(1) (2015) 119–130.
[24] S. Rifai, P. Vincent, X. Muller, et al., Contractive Auto-Encoders: Explicit
Invariance during Feature extraction[C]//Icml, 2011.
[25] G. Alain, Y. Bengio, What regularized auto-encoders learn from the data-
generating distribution[J], J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15 (1) (2014) 3563–3593.
[26] P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, et al., Extracting and Composing Robust
Features with Denoising autoencoders[C]//Proceedings of the 25th International
Conference on Machine Learning, 2008, pp. 1096–1103.
[27] Y. Bengio, L. Yao, G. Alain, et al., Generalized denoising auto-encoders as
generative models[J], Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 26 (2013).
[28] D.P. Kingma, M. Welling, Auto-encoding variational bayes[J], arXiv preprint
arXiv:1312.6114 (2013), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1312.6114.
[29] T. Mikolov, M. Karafiát, L. Burget, et al., Recurrent neural network based
language model[C], Interspeech 2 (3) (2010) 1045–1048.
[30] M. Sundermeyer, R. Schlüter, H. Ney, LSTM Neural Networks for Language
modeling[C]//Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech
Communication Association, 2012.
[31] J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K.H. Cho, et al., Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent
neural networks on sequence modeling[J], arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555
(2014), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.3555.
[32] J. Gu, Z. Wang, J. Kuen, et al., Recent advances in convolutional neural networks
[J], Pattern Recogn. 77 (2018) 354–377.
[33] S. Kiranyaz, O. Avci, O. Abdeljaber, et al., 1D convolutional neural networks and
applications: a survey[J], Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 151 (2021), 107398.
[34] I. Sutskever, O. Vinyals, Q.V. Le, Sequence to sequence learning with neural
networks[J], Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 27 (2014).
[35] H. Huang, X. Hu, Y. Zhao, et al., Modeling task fMRI data via deep convolutional
autoencoder[J], IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 37 (7) (2017) 1551–1561.
[36] C. Zhang, D. Song, Y. Chen, et al., A deep neural network for unsupervised
anomaly detection and diagnosis in multivariate time series data[C], Proc. AAAI
Conf. Artif. Intell. 33 (2019) 1409–1416, 01.
[37] S. Zhang, T. Qiu, A dynamic-inner convolutional autoencoder for process
monitoring[J], Comput. Chem. Eng. 158 (2022), 107654.
[38] Z. Zhang, J. Zhu, Z. Ge, Industrial Process Modeling and Fault Detection with
Recurrent Kalman Variational Autoencoder[C]//2020 IEEE 9th Data Driven
Control and Learning Systems Conference (DDCLS), IEEZE, 2020, pp. 1370–1376.
[39] P. Song, C. Zhao, B. Huang, SFNet: a slow feature extraction network for parallel
linear and nonlinear dynamic process monitoring[J], Neurocomputing 488
(2022) 359–380.
[40] L. Jiang, Z. Ge, Z. Song, Semi-supervised fault classification based on dynamic
Sparse Stacked auto-encoders model[J], Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 168 (2017)
72–83.
J. Qian et al.
[41] J. Yin, X. Yan, Mutual information–dynamic stacked sparse autoencoders for fault
detection[J], Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (47) (2019) 21614–21624.
[42] P. Agarwal, M. Tamer, H. Budman, Explainability: relevance based dynamic deep
learning algorithm for fault detection and diagnosis in chemical processes[J],
Comput. Chem. Eng. 154 (2021), 107467.
[43] N. Li, H. Shi, B. Song, et al., Temporal-spatial neighborhood enhanced sparse
autoencoder for nonlinear dynamic process, Monitoring[J]. Processes 8 (9)
(2020) 1079.
[44] J. Ren, D. Ni, A batch-wise LSTM-encoder decoder network for batch process
monitoring[J], Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 164 (2020) 102–112.
[45] F. Cheng, Q.P. He, J. Zhao, A novel process monitoring approach based on
variational recurrent autoencoder[J], Comput. Chem. Eng. 129 (2019), 106515.
[46] Y. Kanno, H. Kaneko, Deep Convolutional Neural Network with Deconvolution
and a Deep Autoencoder for Fault Detection and Diagnosis[J], ACS omega, 2022.
[47] X. Liu, J. Yu, L. Ye, Residual attention convolutional autoencoder for feature
learning and fault detection in nonlinear industrial processes[J], Neural Comput.
Appl. 33 (19) (2021) 12737–12753.
[48] M. Maggipinto, A. Beghi, G.A. Susto, A Deep Convolutional Autoencoder-Based
Approach for Anomaly Detection with Industrial, Non-images, 2-Dimensional
Data: A Semiconductor Manufacturing Case Study[J], IEEE Transactions on
Automation Science and Engineering, 2022.
[49] S. Chen, J. Yu, S. Wang, One-dimensional convolutional auto-encoder-based
feature learning for fault diagnosis of multivariate processes[J], J. Process
Control 87 (2020) 54–67.
[50] J. Yu, X. Liu, One-dimensional residual convolutional auto-encoder for fault
detection in complex industrial processes[J], Int. J. Prod. Res. (2021) 1–20.
[51] J. Yu, C. Zhang, S. Wang, Multichannel one-dimensional convolutional neural
network-based feature learning for fault diagnosis of industrial processes[J],
Neural Comput. Appl. 33 (8) (2021) 3085–3104.
[52] J. Yu, C. Zhang, S. Wang, Sparse one-dimensional convolutional neural network-
based feature learning for fault detection and diagnosis in multivariable
manufacturing processes[J], Neural Comput. Appl. 34 (6) (2022) 4343–4366.
[53] H. Gao, C. Wei, W. Huang, et al., Multimode process monitoring based on
hierarchical mode identification and stacked denoising autoencoder[J], Chem.
Eng. Sci. 253 (2022), 117556.
[54] Y. Zhou, X. Ren, S. Li, Nonlinear non-Gaussian and multimode process
monitoring-based multi-subspace vine copula and deep neural network[J], Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (32) (2020) 14385–14397.
[55] F. Lv, X. Fan, C. Wen, et al., Stacked Sparse Auto Encoder Network Based
Multimode Process monitoring[C]//2018 International Conference on Control,
Automation and Information Sciences (Iccais), IEEE, 2018, pp. 227–232.
[56] W. Lu, X. Yan, Deep model based on mode elimination and Fisher criterion
combined with self-organizing map for visual multimodal chemical process
monitoring[J], Inf. Sci. 562 (2021) 13–27.
[57] K. Wang, Z. Guo, Y. Wang, et al., Common and specific deep feature
representation for multimode process monitoring using a novel variable-wise
weighted parallel network[J], Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 104 (2021), 104381.
[58] Y.C. Zhou, M.Q. Li, L.B. Ji, Denoising deep autoencoder Gaussian mixture model
and its application for robust nonlinear industrial process monitoring[C]//2021
international conference on computer information science and artificial
intelligence (CISAI), IEEE (2021) 67–73.
[59] P. Tang, K. Peng, J. Dong, et al., Monitoring of nonlinear processes with multiple
operating modes through a novel Gaussian mixture variational autoencoder
model[J], IEEE Access 8 (2020) 114487–114500.
[60] W. Yu, C. Zhao, Robust monitoring and fault isolation of nonlinear industrial
processes using denoising autoencoder and elastic net[J], IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 28 (3) (2019) 1083–1091.
[61] J. Liu, L. Xu, Y. Xie, et al., Toward Robust Fault Identification of Complex
Industrial Processes Using Stacked Sparse-Denoising Autoencoder with Softmax
Classifier[J], IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2021.
[62] S. Chen, Q. Jiang, Distributed robust process monitoring based on optimized
denoising autoencoder with reinforcement learning[J], IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas. 71 (2022) 1–11.
[63] H. Lee, Y. Kim, C.O. Kim, A deep learning model for robust wafer fault monitoring
with sensor measurement noise[J], IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 30 (1) (2016)
23–31.
[64] L. Jiang, Z. Song, Z. Ge, et al., Robust self-supervised model and its application for
fault detection[J], Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56 (26) (2017) 7503–7515.
[65] W. Yan, P. Guo, Z. Li, Nonlinear and robust statistical process monitoring based
on variant autoencoders[J], Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 158 (2016) 31–40.
[66] Z. Hu, H. Zhao, J. Peng, Low-rank reconstruction-based autoencoder for robust
fault detection[J], Control Eng. Pract. 123 (2022), 105156.
[67] S.J. Choudhury, N.R. Pal, Imputation of missing data with neural networks for
classification[J], Knowl. Base Syst. 182 (2019), 104838.
[68] J.T. McCoy, S. Kroon, L. Auret, Variational autoencoders for missing data
imputation with application to a simulated milling circuit[J], IFAC-PapersOnLine
51 (21) (2018) 141–146.
[69] A.H. Ba-Alawi, J. Loy-Benitez, S.Y. Kim, et al., Missing data imputation and
sensor self-validation towards a sustainable operation of wastewater treatment
plants via deep variational residual autoencoders[J], Chemosphere 288 (2022),
132647.
[70] K. Jiang, Z. Jiang, Y. Xie, et al., Ironmaking process based on stacked dynamic
target-driven denoising autoencoders[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 18 (3) (2021)
1854–1863.
15
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
[71] Y. Wang, H. Yang, X. Yuan, et al., Deep learning for fault-relevant feature
extraction and fault classification with stacked supervised auto-encoder[J],
J. Process Control 92 (2020) 79–89.
[72] F. Yu, J. Liu, D. Liu, et al., Supervised convolutional autoencoder-based fault-
relevant feature learning for fault diagnosis in industrial processes[J], J. Taiwan
Inst. Chem. Eng. 132 (2022), 104200.
[73] S. Yan, X. Yan, Using labeled autoencoder to supervise neural network combined
with k-nearest neighbor for visual industrial process monitoring[J], Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 58 (23) (2019) 9952–9958.
[74] Z. Pan, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, et al., A classification-driven neuron-grouped SAE for
feature representation and its application to fault classification in chemical
processes[J], Knowl. Base Syst. 230 (2021), 107350.
[75] J. Yin, X. Yan, Stacked sparse autoencoders monitoring model based on fault-
related variable selection[J], Soft Comput. 25 (5) (2021) 3531–3543.
[76] X. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Song, Feature-aligned Stacked Autoencoder: A Novel Semi-
supervised Deep Learning Model for Pattern Classification of Industrial Faults[J],
IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2021.
[77] S. Yan, X. Yan, Design teacher and supervised dual stacked auto-encoders for
quality-relevant fault detection in industrial process[J], Appl. Soft Comput. 81
(2019), 105526.
[78] S. Yan, X. Yan, Quality-driven autoencoder for nonlinear quality-related and
process-related fault detection based on least-squares regularization and
enhanced statistics[J], Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (26) (2020) 12136–12143.
[79] S. Yan, X. Yan, Quality-relevant fault detection based on adversarial learning and
distinguished contribution of latent variables to quality[J], J. Manuf. Syst. 61
(2021) 536–545.
[80] K. Wang, X. Yuan, J. Chen, et al., Supervised and semi-supervised probabilistic
learning with deep neural networks for concurrent process-quality monitoring[J],
Neural Network. 136 (2021) 54–62.
[81] P. Tang, K. Peng, J. Dong, Y variational information bottleneck and variational
autoencoder[J], ISA Trans. 114 (2021) 444–454.
[82] J. Zhu, H. Shi, B. Song, et al., Information concentrated variational auto-encoder
for quality-related nonlinear process monitoring[J], J. Process Control 94 (2020)
12–25.
[83] Y.L. He, K. Li, N. Zhang, et al., fault diagnosis using improved discrimination
locality preserving projections integrated with sparse autoencoder[J], IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70 (2021) 1–8.
[84] W. Lu, X. Yan, Industrial Process Data Visualization Based on a Deep Enhanced T-
Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding Neural network[J], Assembly
Automation, 2022.
[85] Y. Wang, C. Liu, X. Yuan, Stacked locality preserving autoencoder for feature
extraction and its application for industrial process data modeling[J],
Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 203 (2020), 104086.
[86] J. Yu, C. Zhang, Manifold regularized stacked autoencoders-based feature
learning for fault detection in industrial processes[J], J. Process Control 92
(2020) 119–136.
[87] C. Zhang, J. Yu, L. Ye, Sparsity and manifold regularized convolutional auto-
encoders-based feature learning for fault detection of multivariate processes[J],
Control Eng. Pract. 111 (2021), 104811.
[88] J. Yu, X. Yan, A new deep model based on the stacked autoencoder with
intensified iterative learning style for industrial fault detection[J], Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 153 (2021) 47–59.
[89] F. Cheng, J. Zhao, A novel process monitoring approach based on Feature Points
Distance Dynamic Autoencoder[M], Comput. Aid. Chem. Eng. 46 (2019)
757–762. Elsevier.
[90] D. Kong, X. Yan, Adaptive parameter tuning stacked autoencoders for process
monitoring[J], Soft Comput. 24 (17) (2020) 12937–12951.
[91] G.S. Chadha, A. Rabbani, A. Schwung, Comparison of semi-supervised deep
neural networks for anomaly detection in industrial processes[C]//2019 IEEE
17th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), IEEE 1 (2019)
214–219.
[92] P. Park, P.D. Marco, H. Shin, et al., Fault detection and diagnosis using combined
autoencoder and long short-term memory network[J], Sensors 19 (21) (2019)
4612.
[93] T. Zhang, W. Wang, H. Ye, et al., Fault Detection for Ironmaking Process Based on
Stacked Denoising autoencoders[C]//2016 American Control Conference (ACC),
IEEE, 2016, pp. 3261–3267.
[94] T. Mao, Y. Zhang, H. Zhou, et al., Data Driven Injection Molding Process
Monitoring Using Sparse Auto Encoder technique[C]//2015 IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), IEEE, 2015,
pp. 524–528.
[95] J. Yu, X. Liu, L. Ye, Convolutional long short-term memory autoencoder-based
feature learning for fault detection in industrial processes[J], IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas. 70 (2020) 1–15.
[96] Y. Kanno, H. Kaneko, Deep Convolutional Neural Network with Deconvolution
and a Deep Autoencoder for Fault Detection and Diagnosis[J], ACS omega, 2022.
[97] T. Toikka, J. Laitinen, K.T. Koskinen, Failure Detection and Isolation by LSTM
Autoencoder[C]//World Congress on Engineering Asset Management, Springer,
Cham, 2021, pp. 390–399.
[98] J. Yu, X. Yan, Deep unLSTM network: features with memory information
extracted from unlabeled data and their application on industrial unsupervised
industrial fault detection[J], Appl. Soft Comput. 108 (2021), 107382.
[99] M. Dix, A. Chouhan, S. Ganguly, et al., Anomaly detection in the time-series data
of industrial plants using neural network architectures[C]//2021 IEEE seventh
international conference on big data computing service and applications
(BigDataService), IEEE (2021) 222–228.
J. Qian et al.
[100] A.H. Ba-Alawi, P. Vilela, J. Loy-Benitez, et al., Intelligent sensor validation for
sustainable influent quality monitoring in wastewater treatment plants using
stacked denoising autoencoders[J], J. Water Proc. Eng. 43 (2021), 102206.
[101] Y. Choi, S. Yoon, Autoencoder-driven fault detection and diagnosis in building
automation systems: residual-based and latent space-based approaches[J], Build.
Environ. 203 (2021), 108066.
[102] F. Cheng, W. Cai, H. Liao, et al., fault detection and isolation for chiller system
based on deep autoencoder[C]//2021 IEEE 16th conference on industrial
electronics and applications (ICIEA), IEEE (2021) 1702–1706.
[103] J. Zhu, H. Shi, B. Song, et al., Nonlinear process monitoring based on load
weighted denoising autoencoder, [J]. Measurement 171 (2021), 108782.
[104] D. Kong, X. Yan, Industrial process deep feature representation by regularization
strategy autoencoders for process monitoring[J], Meas. Sci. Technol. 31 (2)
(2019), 025104.
[105] J. Fan, W. Wang, H. Zhang, AutoEncoder Based High-Dimensional Data Fault
Detection system[C]//2017 Ieee 15th International Conference on Industrial
Informatics (Indin), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1001–1006.
[106] H. Zhang, P. Wang, X. Gao, et al., Automated Fault Detection Using Convolutional
Auto Encoder and K Nearest Neighbor Rule for Semiconductor Manufacturing
Processes[C]//2020 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous
Systems (ICoIAS), IEEE, 2020, pp. 83–87.
[107] Z. Zhang, T. Jiang, S. Li, et al., Automated feature learning for nonlinear process
monitoring–An approach using stacked denoising autoencoder and k-nearest
neighbor rule[J], J. Process Control 64 (2018) 49–61.
[108] J. Jang, B.W. Min, C.O. Kim, Denoised residual trace analysis for monitoring
semiconductor process faults[J], IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 32 (3) (2019)
293–301.
[109] Z. Zhang, T. Jiang, C. Zhan, et al., Gaussian feature learning based on variational
autoencoder for improving nonlinear process monitoring[J], J. Process Control 75
(2019) 136–155.
[110] K. Wang, M.G. Forbes, B. Gopaluni, et al., Systematic development of a new
variational autoencoder model based on uncertain data for monitoring nonlinear
processes[J], IEEE Access 7 (2019) 22554–22565.
[111] X. Bi, J. Zhao, A novel orthogonal self-attentive variational autoencoder method
for interpretable chemical process fault detection and identification[J], Process
Saf. Environ. Protect. 156 (2021) 581–597.
[112] G.R. Terrell, D.W. Scott, Variable Kernel Density estimation[J], The Annals of
Statistics, 1992, pp. 1236–1265.
[113] Y.C. Chen, A tutorial on kernel density estimation and recent advances[J],
Biostat. Epidemiol. 1 (1) (2017) 161–187.
[114] Q. Jiang, X. Yan, B. Huang, Deep discriminative representation learning for
nonlinear process fault detection[J], IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 17 (3) (2019)
1410–1419.
[115] K. Qiu, W. Song, P. Wang, Abnormal Data Detection for Industrial Processes Using
Adversarial Autoencoders Support Vector Data Description Data description[J],
Measurement Science and Technology, 2022.
[116] M.A. Chao, B.T. Adey, O. Fink, Implicit supervision for fault detection and
segmentation of emerging fault types with Deep Variational Autoencoders[J],
Neurocomputing 454 (2021) 324–338.
[117] R. Arunthavanathan, F. Khan, S. Ahmed, et al., Fault detection and diagnosis in
process system using artificial intelligence-based cognitive technique[J], Comput.
Chem. Eng. 134 (2020), 106697.
[118] G. Zhang, Z. Tang, J. Zhang, et al., Convolutional autoencoder-based flaw
detection for steel wire ropes[J], Sensors 20 (22) (2020) 6612.
[119] G.S. Chadha, A. Schwung, Comparison of Deep Neural Network Architectures for
Fault Detection in Tennessee Eastman process[C]//2017 22nd IEEE International
Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), IEEE,
2017, pp. 1–8.
[120] P. Peng, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, et al., Towards Robust and Understandable Fault
Detection and Diagnosis Using Denoising Sparse Autoencoder and Smooth
Integrated gradients[J], ISA transactions, 2021.
[121] M. Qian, Y.F. Li, T. Han, Positive-unlabeled learning based hybrid deep network
for intelligent fault detection[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 18 (7) (2021) 4510–4519.
[122] H. Wu, J. Zhao, Self-adaptive deep learning for multimode process monitoring[J],
Comput. Chem. Eng. 141 (2020), 107024.
[123] Z. Li, L. Tian, Q. Jiang, et al., Distributed-ensemble stacked autoencoder model
for non-linear process monitoring[J], Inf. Sci. 542 (2021) 302–316.
[124] S. Chen, Q. Jiang, Distributed robust process monitoring based on optimized
denoising autoencoder with reinforcement learning[J], IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas. 71 (2022) 1–11.
[125] C Huang, Y Chai, Z Zhu, et al., A Novel Distributed Fault Detection Approach
Based on the Variational Autoencoder Model[J], ACS omega 7 (3) (2022)
2996–3006.
[126] P. Agarwal, M. Aghaee, M. Tamer, et al., A novel unsupervised approach for batch
process monitoring using deep learning[J], Comput. Chem. Eng. 159 (2022),
107694.
[127] K. Wang, J. Chen, Z. Song, et al., Deep Neural Network-Embedded Stochastic
Nonlinear State-Space Models and Their Applications to Process monitoring[J],
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2021.
16
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 231 (2022) 104711
[128] J. Li, X. Yan, Process monitoring using principal component analysis and stacked
autoencoder for linear and nonlinear coexisting industrial processes[J], J. Taiwan
Inst. Chem. Eng. 112 (2020) 322–329.
[129] J. Yu, X. Yan, Data-Feature-Driven Nonlinear Process Monitoring Based on Joint
Deep Learning Models with Dual-Scale[J], Information Sciences, 2022.
[130] S. Li, J. Luo, Y. Hu, Towards Interpretable Process Monitoring: Slow Feature
Analysis Aided Autoencoder for Spatiotemporal Process Feature Learning[J],
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2021.
[131] Z. Ren, W. Zhang, Z. Zhang, A deep nonnegative matrix factorization approach
via autoencoder for nonlinear fault detection[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 16 (8)
(2019) 5042–5052.
[132] Q. Jiang, S. Yan, X. Yan, et al., Data-driven two-dimensional deep correlated
representation learning for nonlinear batch process monitoring[J], IEEE Trans.
Ind. Inf. 16 (4) (2019) 2839–2848.
[133] P. Chopra, S.K. Yadav, Fault detection and classification by unsupervised feature
extraction and dimensionality reduction[J], Complex & int.syst. 1 (1) (2015)
25–33.
[134] R. Thirukovalluru, S. Dixit, R.K. Sevakula, et al., Generating Feature Sets for Fault
Diagnosis Using Denoising Stacked auto-encoder[C]//2016 IEEE International
Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM), IEEE, 2016,
pp. 1–7.
[135] Y. Qiu, Y. Dai, A stacked auto-encoder based fault diagnosis model for chemical
process[M], Comput. Aid. Chem. Eng. 46 (2019) 1303–1308. Elsevier.
[136] A. He, X. Jin, Deep variational autoencoder classifier for intelligent fault diagnosis
adaptive to unseen fault categories[J], IEEE Trans. Reliab. 70 (4) (2021)
1581–1595.
[137] C. Li, D. Zhao, S. Mu, et al., Fault diagnosis for distillation process based on
CNN–DAE[J], Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 27 (3) (2019) 598–604.
[138] X. Luo, X. Li, Z. Wang, et al., Discriminant autoencoder for feature extraction in
fault diagnosis[J], Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 192 (2019), 103814.
[139] X. Zhao, M. Jia, M. Lin, Deep Laplacian Auto-encoder and its application into
imbalanced fault diagnosis of rotating machinery[J], Measurement 152 (2020),
107320.
[140] J. Yang, G. Xie, Y. Yang, An improved ensemble fusion autoencoder model for
fault diagnosis from imbalanced and incomplete data[J], Control Eng. Pract. 98
(2020), 104358.
[141] Z. Deng, Z. Wang, Z. Tang, et al., A deep transfer learning method based on
stacked autoencoder for cross-domain fault diagnosis[J], Appl. Math. Comput.
408 (2021), 126318.
[142] L. Wen, L. Gao, X. Li, A new deep transfer learning based on sparse auto-encoder
for fault diagnosis[J], IEEE Trans. syst. man cyber.: Systems 49 (1) (2017)
136–144.
[143] S. Zhang, T. Qiu, Semi-supervised LSTM ladder autoencoder for chemical process
fault diagnosis and localization[J], Chem. Eng. Sci. 251 (2022), 117467.
[144] J.A. Westerhuis, S.P. Gurden, A.K. Smilde, Generalized contribution plots in
multivariate statistical process monitoring, J]. Chemometr. int. lab. syst. 51 (1)
(2000) 95–114.
[145] D. Hallgrímsson Á, H.H. Niemann, M. Lind, Improved process diagnosis using
fault contribution plots from sparse autoencoders[J], IFAC-PapersOnLine 53 (2)
(2020) 730–737.
[146] C.F. Alcala, S.J. Qin, Reconstruction-based contribution for process monitoring
[J], Automatica 45 (7) (2009) 1593–1600.
[147] J. Qian, L. Jiang, Z. Song, Locally linear back-propagation based contribution for
nonlinear process fault diagnosis[J], IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica 7 (3) (2020)
764–775.
[148] J. Qian, C. Wei, Q. Zhang, et al., Adaptive positive semidefinite matrix-based
contribution for nonlinear process diagnosis[J], Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60 (21)
(2021) 7868–7882.
[149] P. Tang, K. Peng, R. Jiao, A process monitoring and fault isolation framework
based on variational autoencoders and branch and bound method[J], J. Franklin
Inst. 359 (2) (2022) 1667–1691.
[150] J. Dong, R. Sun, K. Peng, et al., Quality monitoring and root cause diagnosis for
industrial processes based on Lasso-SAE-CCA[J], IEEE Access 7 (2019)
90230–90242.
[151] K. Liu, M. Zheng, Y. Liu, et al., Deep autoencoder thermography for defect
detection of carbon fiber composites[J], IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. (2022).
[152] K. Liu, Q. Yu, Y. Liu, et al., Convolutional graph thermography for subsurface
defect detection in polymer composites[J], IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 71 (2022)
1–11.
[153] K. Liu, Y. Li, J. Yang, et al., Generative principal component thermography for
enhanced defect detection and analysis[J], IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 69 (10)
(2020) 8261–8269.
[154] T.B. Duman, B. Bayram, G. İnce, Acoustic Anomaly Detection Using
Convolutional Autoencoders in Industrial processes[C]//International Workshop
on Soft Computing Models in Industrial and Environmental Applications,
Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 432–442.
[155] J. Yu, X. Zheng, J. Liu, Stacked convolutional sparse denoising auto-encoder for
identification of defect patterns in semiconductor wafer map[J], Comput. Ind.
109 (2019) 121–133.