---
title: "Plug-and-Play Unsupervised Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Complex Industrial Monitoring"
authors:
  - "Maksim Golyadkin"
  - "Maria Shtark"
  - "Petr Ivanov"
  - "Alexander Kozhevnikov"
  - "Leonid Zhukov"
  - "Ilya Makarov"
doi: "10.24963/ijcai.2024/1005"
url: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/1005"
pdf: "https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/1005.pdf"
venue: "Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence"
year: 2024
pages: "8669-8673"
track: "Demo Track"
keywords:
  - "Machine Learning: ML: Unsupervised learning"
  - "Data Mining: DM: Anomaly/outlier detection"
  - "Machine Learning: ML: Self-supervised Learning"
  - "Machine Learning: ML: Time series and data streams"
  - "Machine Learning: ML: Clustering"
---

# Plug-and-Play Unsupervised Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Complex Industrial Monitoring

Maksim Golyadkin, Maria Shtark, Petr Ivanov, Alexander Kozhevnikov, Leonid Zhukov, Ilya Makarov

*Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, pages 8669-8673. DOI: [10.24963/ijcai.2024/1005](https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/1005)

## Abstract

Today industrial facilities are equipped with lots of sensors throughout all the production line for monitoring means. Gathered data can be used to detect and predict failures; however, manual labeling of large amounts of data for supervised learning is complicated. This paper introduces an innovative approach to unsupervised fault detection and diagnosis tailored for monitoring industrial chemical processes. We showcase the efficacy of our model using two publicly accessible datasets from the Tennessee Eastman Process, each containing various faults. Furthermore, we illustrate that by fine-tuning the model on a limited amount of labeled data, it achieves performance close to that of a state-of-the-art model trained on the entire dataset.

## Full text

## 1 Introduction

Specialized equipment and technology are utilized in chemical processing plants to facilitate the manufacturing process. A closed-loop control system is commonly employed to ensure the stability of production by automatically making small adjustments. Process lines are extensively instrumented with sensors that provide real-time data to monitoring and control systems. Despite these measures, unexpected process deviations can sometimes occur, resulting in reduced process yield, interruptions, and potential equipment damage or failure.

Early fault detection and diagnostics are crucial components of a process monitoring system. A fault is commonly defined as a deviation of a process variable outside the acceptable production range [Venkatasubramanian et al., 2003]. Detecting faults early enables the selection of appropriate recovery procedures to restore the process to its normal operating state.

Fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) techniques typically use a supervised approach, where you have to label all sensor data for each time interval with the corresponding process state. However, manual labeling of extensive data sets can be costly and challenging in industrial environments. In response to this issue, unsupervised FDD methods have been put forward as an alternative approach. These unsupervised methods reduce the dimensionality of sensor data and utilize clustering techniques to group samples based on their process states.

Recently, various deep clustering techniques have been proposed for unsupervised image classification [Ji et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Grechikhin and Savchenko, 2019; Savchenko et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2020]. Nevertheless, these approaches utilize feature extractors that primarily focus on low-level features, overlooking the potential high-level characteristics hidden within the input data.

We introduce a new unsupervised FDD method that utilizes deep learning techniques to achieve high accuracy with chemical sensor data. Our method combines SSL pretraining and Deep Clustering to enhance performance in this domain.

Our approach outperforms contemporary unsupervised FDD methods when evaluated using multiple clustering metrics on the Tennessee Eastman Process (TEP) benchmarks.

## 2 RelatedWork

In recent times, there has been a surge in data-driven techniques aimed at detecting and diagnosing faults in industrial processes [Lei et al., 2020; Taqvi et al., 2021; Bi et al., 2022; Lomov et al., 2021a; Pozdnyakov et al., 2024]. The majority of these methods rely on extracting features from raw historical data. Nevertheless, data captured by industrial sensors often exhibit high redundancy and intercorrelation, posing challenges for many data-driven approaches.

Fault detection and diagnosis typically follow two broad approaches: supervised and unsupervised. In the supervised approach, a labeled dataset is necessary, enabling the trained model to differentiate between observed abnormal states in the process history. However, this dataset often lacks representation of all potential faults, prompting the exploration of unsupervised methods. Unlike supervised methods, unsupervised techniques are not limited to a predefined set of observed and labeled faults.

In the past few years there have been a lot of studies using modern techniques for fault detection and diagnosis problems: mostly deep neural networks of different types [Zhang and Qiu, 2022; Bi and Zhao, 2021; Golyadkin et al., 2023; Lomov et al., 2021a; Kovalenko et al., 2022] and other.

## 2.1 Self-Supervised Learning for Time Series

Self-supervised learning techniques for time series processing can be divided into two main categories. The first group utilizes pretext tasks tailored to leverage the structural characteristics inherent in time series data. Conversely, methods within the second group adopt general representation learning strategies applicable to diverse data types, exhibiting superior performance across a spectrum of machine learning tasks in recent studies [Brown et al., 2020; Dai et al., 2021].

## 2.2 Deep Clustering

Basic deep clustering techniques rely on applying traditional clustering algorithms to features extracted using a pretrained feature extractor [Huang et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018]. These models can be trained using unlabeled data, operating by extracting semantically significant features from raw data.

Alternatively, there are models trained using end-to-end indirect loss functions to map inputs to cluster indices [Ji et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021; Niu et al., 2020]. However, a notable drawback of this approach is the utilization of the same loss function for both feature extraction and class assignment training phases. Van Gansbeke et al. introduced the SCAN algorithm [Van Gansbeke et al., 2020], which conducts clustering by ensuring the similarity of cluster predictions for neighboring objects, utilizing proximity calculated within the embedding space of the pretrained feature extractor.

## 3 Model Description

Our method aims to generate clustering results for a given set of unlabeled multivariate time series samples X = X1, . . . ,XN, where each Xi is a matrix in RL×D denoting sample length L and sensor count D. Corresponding to X , we have a set of labels Y = y1, . . . , yN, where yi ∈ 1, . . . ,Q, but these labels are unavailable during training. Our model comprises two components: a large feature extractor F and a small clustering network C. Initially, the feature extractor undergoes pretraining using self-supervised learning methods, and the cluster count is determined through visual analysis of the latent space distribution. Subsequently, the clustering network and feature extractor are jointly trained using the SCAN loss function [Van Gansbeke et al., 2020], using information from the embedding space regarding neighboring data points.

Self-supervised learning techniques are employed to empower our model in discerning distinct samples without relying on ground truth labels. Through these methodologies, the neural network delves into the intrinsic structure of the data. We utilize a feature extractor built upon the Transformer architecture [Vaswani et al., 2017], which comprises four components: an encoder T , a sequential pooling layer P, a projection head H, and a reconstruction head R.

Figure 1: Overview of our method.

![Image](https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/fulltext/1005/image_000000_08dcde69fbf8bd801b9372cbe40228de7e856d9d1f476197a140189b3c81fa0d.png)

To create masked samples from a given sample X ∈ RL×D , we generate a binary mask M ∈ 0, 1L×D and perform element-wise multiplication, resulting in ˆX = X ⊙M. The loss function employed for this task is MSE, calculated exclusively for the masked values:

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

where B is the batch size, and l and d correspond to the number of timestamps and the number of sensors, respectively.

Training proceeds by minimizing the NT-Xent loss [Chen et al., 2020] (normalized temperature-scaled cross entropy). Initially, a minibatch of B samples is randomly sampled and augmented to yield a minibatch of 2B samples. Consequently, for each sample, there exists one positive pair and (2B - 2) negative pairs. The NT-Xent loss encourages the distance between positive pairs to be smaller than that between negative pairs. Specifically, for the positive pair (i, j), the loss is defined as follows:

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

where zi, zj , zk ∈ RF represent the outputs of the projection head, sim(u, v) = u⊤v/(||u|| : ||v||) denotes the cosine similarity, and τ denotes the temperature parameter. The final loss Lcont is computed across all 2B positive pairs.

The self-supervised learning (SSL) pretraining spans over E epochs, following this iterative process:

1. Randomly sample a minibatch of size B.
2. Applyweak augmentation α and strong augmentation β.
3. Independently generate a binary maskMi for each sample.
4. Reconstruct the masked values and compute reconstruction loss.
5. Generate embedding for the masked samples and calculate the NT-Xent loss.
6. Compute total loss as a weighted sum of the two above.

Clustering organizes samples based on their similarity, effectively distinguishing various process states even without the presence of ground truth labels. Prior to training, a preprocessing step known as nearest neighbors mining is necessary. For each sample Xi, we identify its K nearest neighbors NXi within the embedding space of the feature extractor.

The nearest neighbors mining algorithm is as follows:

Figure 2: Evolution of clusters during our model training.

![Image](https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/fulltext/1005/image_000001_8ace81adb2777149bab3da5b048ea8445faf1116986f28594ef8d77ea5b8843c.png)

1. Randomly shuffle the training dataset.
2. Split the dataset into T chunks of equal size.
3. For each Xi, the nearest neighbors are found within the chunk Xk it belongs to: NXi = NearestNeighbors(Xi, Xk).

The clustering network C is structured as a 2-layer MultiLayer Perceptron (MLP), with intermediate BatchNormalization and ReLU activation function, and final softmax activation, C : RF → R ˜M . The learning mechanism is engineered to ensure consistent label prediction distributions for both the sample and its neighboring instances. In sum, the loss computation proceeds as follows:

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

and ⟨·, ·⟩ denotes the dot product, λent is entropy loss weight, XNN i is the neighbour randomly sampled from NXi , and H(C ′ ) denotes the entropy over discrete distribution C ′ .

## 4 Tennessee Eastman Process

The Tennessee Eastman Process (TEP) is a widely recognized benchmark used to evaluate process control and FDD methods, originally developed by the Eastman Chemical Company. [Downs and Vogel, 1993]. There are two separate numerical simulators for the TEP process. An extended version of this dataset (hereafter TEPRieth) was first introduced and employed in [Rieth et al., 2018]. The second simulator uses distinct control schemes.[Lawrence Ricker, 1996; Ricker and Lee, 1995; Larsson et al., 2001] and is available at the Tennessee Eastman Challenge Archive. The extended dataset (hereafter TEPRicker) generated with this model is presented in [Reinartz et al., 2021].

Table 1: Aggregated detection and diagnosis metrics evaluated on TEPRieth in the unsupervised setting.

|               |    PCA |   ST-CatGAN |   ConvAE |   Ours |
|---------------|--------|-------------|----------|--------|
| Detection TPR |   0.36 |        0.30 |     0.48 |   0.84 |
| Detection FPR |   0.00 |        0.00 |     0.00 |   0.00 |
| CDR           |   0.79 |        0.32 |     0.93 |   0.92 |
| ADD           | 113.95 |      102.63 |    49.95 |   5.21 |

Table 2: Aggregated detection and diagnosis metrics evaluated on TEPRicker in the unsupervised setting.

|               |    PCA |   ST-CatGAN |   ConvAE |   Ours |
|---------------|--------|-------------|----------|--------|
| Detection TPR |   0.36 |        0.36 |     0.64 |   0.87 |
| Detection FPR |   0.00 |        0.00 |     0.00 |   0.00 |
| CDR           |   0.95 |        0.89 |     0.89 |   0.96 |
| ADD           | 111.49 |      135.04 |    52.28 |  28.47 |

## 5 EvaluationMetrics

We conduct FDD on multivariate time series data X = X1, . . . ,XN, where each Xi is a matrix in RL×D representing sample length L and sensor count D. Samples are generated using sliding windows of size L. In our experiments, window size is set to 100 and step size is set to 1. For datasets TEPRieth and TEPRicker, this corresponds to 300 minutes and 3 minutes, respectively.

For FDD evaluation, we compare ground truth labels with predicted ones using label matching. Metrics include True Positive Rate (TPR), False Positive Rate (FPR), and Correct Diagnosis Rate (CDR). Detection TPR and FPR are calculated for each fault separately, while ADD measures the average number of samples between the first ground-truth faulty sample and the first detected faulty sample.

## 6 Experiments

We conducted a comparative analysis between our method and various unsupervised models, encompassing both traditional and state-of-the-art data-driven methods. We hypothesize that an effective unsupervised model should be capable of detecting all faults by partitioning samples into distinct groups, hence we set the number of clusters equal to the number of classes. Figure 1 shows the evolution of clusters during training. As baseline models, we utilized PCA [He et al., 2005], ST-CatGAN [Tao et al., 2020], ConvAE [Zheng and Zhao, 2020], and GRU [Lomov et al., 2021b].

All four models on both TEPRieth and TEPRicker datasets have shown Detection FPR less than 0.01 which is below practical threshold.

## 7 Conclusion

The study presents an unsupervised FDD model utilizing selfsupervised learning and deep clustering techniques, evaluated on TEPRieth and TEPRicker datasets. Our approach outperforms other unsupervised methods, attributed to the feature extractor's proficiency in encoding sensor data and deep clustering's ability to form dense clusters in the latent space.

We demonstrate the model's effectiveness with unlabeled data, common in industrial processes, and propose semisupervised fine-tuning to detect challenging faults with minimal labeled data. Our method combines Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) with deep clustering, facilitating training on unlabeled data while considering the anticipated number of faults. Fine-tuning enables leveraging labeled examples within the dataset. Finally, adjusting the expected number of faults or incorporating new fault types allows fine-tuning of the feature extractor without retraining from scratch.

## Ethical Statement

Though AI could be a great piece of automation, it shouldn't be blindly trusted to monitor and/or manage complex industrial systems. AI algorithms, even the most intelligent ones, may make critical mistakes leading to severe consequences: money and time loss, environmental or human harm, etc. This makes a huge field of study itself: intelligent algorithmmonitoring, safe integration, and application.

No one should use these algorithms without a failsafe. In some cases, it's even better not to use AI-powered systems at all. We should always consider the whole picture: automation gain and possible losses due to its failure.

## Acknowledgements

The work of I. Makarov on fault detection and giagnosis related work was supported by a grant for research centers in the field of artificial intelligence, provided by the Analytical Center in accordance with the subsidy agreement (agreement identifier 000000D730321P5Q0002) and the agreement with the Ivannikov Institute for System Programming of dated November 2, 2021 No. 70-2021-00142.

## References

1. [Bi and Zhao, 2021] Xiaotian Bi and Jinsong Zhao. A novel orthogonal self-attentive variational autoencoder method for interpretable chemical process fault detection and iden- tification. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 156:581-597, 2021.
2. [Bi et al., 2022] Xiaotian Bi, Ruoshi Qin, Deyang Wu, Shaodong Zheng, and Jinsong Zhao. One step forward for smart chemical process fault detection and diagnosis. Computers I& Chemical Engineering, 164:107884, 2022.
3. [Brown et al., 2020] Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Win- ter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Ma- teusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language models are few- shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165, 2020.
4. [Chen et al., 2020] Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Moham- mad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations. CoRR, abs/2002.05709, 2020.
5. [Dai et al., 2021] Zihang Dai, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V Le, and Mingxing Tan. Coatnet: Marrying convolution and atten- tion for all data sizes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:3965-3977, 2021.
6. [Downs and Vogel, 1993] James J Downs and Ernest F Vo- gel. A plant-wide industrial process control problem. Computers & chemical engineering, 17(3):245-255, 1993.
7. [Golyadkin et al., 2023] Maksim Golyadkin, Vitaliy Pozd- nyakov, Leonid Zhukov, and Ilya Makarov. Sensorscan: Self-supervised learning and deep clustering for fault di- agnosis in chemical processes. Artificial Intelligence, 324:104012, 2023.
8. [Grechikhin and Savchenko, 2019] Ivan Grechikhin and An- drey V Savchenko. User modeling on mobile device based on facial clustering and object detection in photos and videos. In Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis: 9th Iberian Conference, IbPRIA 2019, Madrid, Spain, July 1- 4, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 9, pages 429-440. Springer, 2019.
9. [He et al., 2005] Q. Peter He, S. Joe Qin, and Jin Wang. A new fault diagnosis method using fault directions in fisher discriminant analysis. AIChE Journal, 51(2):555-571, 2005.
10. [Hu et al., 2017] Weihua Hu, Takeru Miyato, Seiya Tokui, Eiichi Matsumoto, and Masashi Sugiyama. Learning discrete representations via information maximizing self- augmented training. In Proceedings of the 34th Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning -Volume 70, ICML'17, page 1558-1567. JMLR.org, 2017.
11. [Huang et al., 2014] Peihao Huang, Yan Huang, Wei Wang, and Liang Wang. Deep embedding network for clustering. In 2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recog- nition, pages 1532-1537, 2014.
12. [Huang et al., 2020] Jiabo Huang, Shaogang Gong, and Xi- atian Zhu. Deep semantic clustering by partition confi- dence maximisation. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8846-8855, 2020.
13. [Ji et al., 2019] Xu Ji, Andrea Vedaldi, and Joao Henriques. Invariant information clustering for unsupervised image classification and segmentation. In 2019 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9864-9873, 2019.
14. [Kovalenko et al., 2022] Alexander Kovalenko, Vitaliy Pozdnyakov, and Ilya Makarov. Graph neural networks with trainable adjacency matrices for fault diagnosis on multivariate sensor data, 2022.
15. [Larsson et al., 2001] Truls Larsson, Kristin Hestetun, Es- pen Hovland, and Sigurd Skogestad. Self-optimizing control of a large-scale plant: The tennessee eastman process. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 40(22):4889-4901, 2001.
16. [Lawrence Ricker, 1996] N. Lawrence Ricker. Decentral- ized control of the tennessee eastman challenge process. Journal of Process Control, 6(4):205-221, 1996.
17. [Lei et al., 2020] Yaguo Lei, Bin Yang, Xinwei Jiang, Feng Jia, Naipeng Li, and Asoke K. Nandi. Applications of machine learning to machine fault diagnosis: A review and roadmap. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 138:106587, 2020.
18. [Li et al., 2018] Fengfu Li, Hong Qiao, and Bo Zhang. Dis- criminatively boosted image clustering with fully convo- lutional auto-encoders. Pattern Recognition, 83:161-173, 2018.
19. [Li et al., 2021] Yunfan Li, Peng Hu, Zitao Liu, Dezhong Peng, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Xi Peng. Contrastive clus- tering. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(10):8547-8555, May 2021.
20. [Lomov et al., 2021a] Ildar Lomov, Mark Lyubimov, Ilya Makarov, and Leonid E Zhukov. Fault detection in tennessee eastman process with temporal deep learning models. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23:100216, 2021.
21. [Lomov et al., 2021b] Ildar Lomov, Mark Lyubimov, Ilya Makarov, and Leonid E. Zhukov. Fault detection in tennessee eastman process with temporal deep learning models. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23:100216, 2021.
22. [Niu et al., 2020] Chuang Niu, Jun Zhang, Ge Wang, and Jimin Liang. Gatcluster: Self-supervised gaussian- attention network for image clustering. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, Computer Vision -ECCV 2020, pages 735-751,
23. Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing.
24. [Pozdnyakov et al., 2024] Vitaliy Pozdnyakov, Aleksandr Kovalenko, Ilya Makarov, Mikhail Drobyshevskiy, and Kirill Lukyanov. Adversarial attacks and defenses in au- tomated control systems: A comprehensive benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13502, 2024.
25. [Reinartz et al., 2021] Christopher Reinartz, Murat Kulahci, and Ole Ravn. An extended tennessee eastman simulation dataset for fault-detection and decision support systems. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 149:107281, 2021.
26. [Ricker and Lee, 1995] NL Ricker and JayHyung Lee. Non- linear modeling and state estimation for the tennessee east- man challenge process. Computers & chemical engineer- ing, 19(9):983-1005, 1995.
27. [Rieth et al., 2018] Cory A. Rieth, Ben D. Amsel, Randy Tran, and Maia B. Cook. Issues and advances in anomaly detection evaluation for joint human-automated systems. In Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, pages 52-63. Springer International Publishing, 2018.
28. [Savchenko et al., 2022] Andrey V Savchenko, Kirill V De- mochkin, and Ivan S Grechikhin. Preference prediction based on a photo gallery analysis with scene recognition and object detection. Pattern Recognition, 121:108248, 2022.
29. [Tao et al., 2020] Hongfeng Tao, Peng Wang, Yiyang Chen, Vladimir Stojanovic, and Huizhong Yang. An unsuper- vised fault diagnosis method for rolling bearing using stft and generative neural networks. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 357(11):7286-7307, 2020.
30. [Taqvi et al., 2021] Syed Ali Ammar Taqvi, Haslinda Zabiri, Lemma Dendena Tufa, Fahim Uddin, Syeda Anmol Fa- tima, and Abdulhalim Shah Maulud. A review on data- driven learning approaches for fault detection and di- agnosis in chemical processes. ChemBioEng Reviews, 8(3):239-259, 2021.
31. [Van Gansbeke et al., 2020] Wouter Van Gansbeke, Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Marc Proesmans, and Luc Van Gool. Scan: Learning to classify images without labels. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, Computer Vision - ECCV 2020, pages 268-285, Cham, 2020. Springer Inter- national Publishing.
32. [Vaswani et al., 2017] Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017.
33. [Venkatasubramanian et al., 2003] Venkat Venkatasubrama- nian, Raghunathan Rengaswamy, Kewen Yin, and Surya N. Kavuri. A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: Part i: Quantitative model-based meth- ods. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27(3):293-311, 2003.
34. [Xie et al., 2016] Junyuan Xie, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. Unsupervised deep embedding for clustering analysis. In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Wein- berger, editors, Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 48 of Proceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, pages 478-487, New York, New York, USA, 20-22 Jun 2016. PMLR.
35. [Yang et al., 2017] Bo Yang, Xiao Fu, Nicholas D. Sidiropoulos, and Mingyi Hong. Towards k-means- friendly spaces: Simultaneous deep learning and clustering. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning -Volume 70, ICML'17, page 3861-3870. JMLR.org, 2017.
36. [Zhang and Qiu, 2022] Shuyuan Zhang and Tong Qiu. Semi- supervised lstm ladder autoencoder for chemical process fault diagnosis and localization. Chemical Engineering Science, 251:117467, 2022.
37. [Zheng and Zhao, 2020] Shaodong Zheng and Jinsong Zhao. A new unsupervised data mining method based on the stacked autoencoder for chemical process fault diagnosis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 135:106755, 2020.