Heterogeneous Transfer Learning Based on Stack Sparse Auto-Encoders for Fault Diagnosis

Fault diagnosis can reduce the risk of accidental failure and play a vital role in ensuring the reliability and safety of industrial systems. The traditional fault diagnosis algorithms mostly require enough training samples. However, in many cases it can be difficult and expensive in some scenarios. In this paper, the auxiliary domain data are used to train the learner and a novel heterogeneous transfer learning method is proposed for fault diagnosis. Data from source domain and target domain are represented by heterogeneous characteristics of different dimensions in heterogeneous transfer learning. We project the source domain and the target domain into the same feature space through two different auto-encoders. Then the similarity of distribution between source domain and target domain could be evaluated. The concept of distance to the center of the domain is introduced to evaluate the similarity of distribution between source domain and target domain. Firstly, it is introduced into the projection process using a small number of target domain labeled samples supervised training sparse auto-encoders (SAEs). Then, the second encoder is used to extract further features. Finally, the source domain data was used to train SVM, and use it to diagnose the target domain data. The experiment result shows that classifier trained by different auxiliary domain data have different performance for target data. The proposed approach performs better than the traditional machine learning approach when there is little labelled data in the target domain.

[1]  Ping Zhang,et al.  A comparison study of basic data-driven fault diagnosis and process monitoring methods on the benchmark Tennessee Eastman process , 2012 .

[2]  Robert B. Randall,et al.  Rolling element bearing diagnostics using the Case Western Reserve University data: A benchmark study , 2015 .

[3]  Luís A. Alexandre,et al.  Improving transfer learning accuracy by reusing Stacked Denoising Autoencoders , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[4]  Jing-Rong Li,et al.  A Rough Set Approach to the Ordering of Basic Events in a Fault Tree for Fault Diagnosis , 2001 .

[5]  Liang Gao,et al.  A New Deep Transfer Learning Based on Sparse Auto-Encoder for Fault Diagnosis , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[6]  Xin Zhou,et al.  Deep neural networks: A promising tool for fault characteristic mining and intelligent diagnosis of rotating machinery with massive data , 2016 .

[7]  J. F. Davis,et al.  A structured framework for efficient problem solving in diagnostic expert systems , 1988 .

[8]  Adel Haghani Abandan Sari An overview of fault diagnosis techniques , 2014 .

[9]  Jian Hou,et al.  Recent advances on SVM based fault diagnosis and process monitoring in complicated industrial processes , 2016, Neurocomputing.

[10]  Zhiwei Gao,et al.  From Model, Signal to Knowledge: A Data-Driven Perspective of Fault Detection and Diagnosis , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[11]  Steven X. Ding,et al.  A Survey of Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Techniques—Part II: Fault Diagnosis With Knowledge-Based and Hybrid/Active Approaches , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

[12]  H. Shimodaira,et al.  Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function , 2000 .

[13]  James Hensman,et al.  Natural computing for mechanical systems research: A tutorial overview , 2011 .

[14]  Torsten Jeinsch,et al.  A Survey of the Application of Basic Data-Driven and Model-Based Methods in Process Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis , 2011 .

[15]  Andreas Schwung,et al.  Comparison of deep neural network architectures for fault detection in Tennessee Eastman process , 2017, 2017 22nd IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA).