Interval width fuzzy aggregation for streaming process monitoring on the Tennessee Eastman benchmark
Downloads
Abstract
This study evaluates a transparent interval-width fuzzy anomaly score for streaming process monitoring. The reported IT2-DRA configuration converts standardized variables into Gaussian normality memberships with widths in [0.8, 1.2], takes complementary anomaly memberships, averages their interval endpoints with fixed normalized weights, and smooths the result. The width band is a design assumption; the resulting score is neither an estimated accident probability nor a calibrated measure of epistemic confidence. On 21 classic Tennessee Eastman (TE) fault streams, the reported mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.8099 ± 0.1667 and the capped detection-delay mean was 251.4 samples. Hotelling T², Multivariate Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (MEWMA), and a shallow autoencoder achieved mean AUCs of 0.9183, 0.9117, and 0.8758 and shorter mean delays. The reported Friedman AUC test gave p = 6.83e−06; Holm-adjusted paired comparisons favored these three baselines. The type-1 counterpart had a statistically detectable but small mean AUC advantage of 0.0006. The false-alarm comparison did not reject equality (p = 0.2483), which does not establish equivalence. A per-variable contribution bound explains why weighted averaging can dilute localized deviations, while joint dependence is not represented explicitly. The findings delimit this interval-midpoint construction on the stated benchmark and do not assess general rule-based interval type-2 inference.
Keywords
Interval-valued fuzzy memberships Anomaly aggregation Tennessee Eastman process fault Detection Streaming monitoring Benchmark comparisonReferences (15)
- [1] Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
- [2] Mendel, J. M., & John, R. I. B. (2002). Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple. IEEE transactions on fuzzy systems, 10(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.995115
- [3] Mendel, J. M. (2007). Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: An overview. IEEE computational intelligence magazine, 2(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2007.357235
- [4] Liou, J. J. H., Guo, B. H. T., Huang, S. W., & Yang, Y. T. (2024). Failure mode and effect analysis using interval type-2 fuzzy and multiple-criteria decision-making methods. Mathematics, 12(24), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12243931
- [5] Padash, A., Fattahi, R., & Vahidi, H. (2024). A novel hybrid risk assessment approach under fuzzy environment in steel industry. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence, 133, 108655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108655
- [6] Braniff, A., Akundi, S. S., Liu, Y., Dantas, B., Niknezhad, S. S., Khan, F., … ., & Tian, Y. (2025). Real-time process safety and systems decision-making toward safe and smart chemical manufacturing. Digital chemical engineering, 15, 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dche.2025.100227
- [7] Downs, J. J., & Vogel, E. F. (1993). A plant-wide industrial process control problem. Computers & chemical engineering, 17(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(93)80018-I
- [8] Chiang, L. H., Russell, E. L., & Braatz, R. D. (2012). Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial systems. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0347-9
- [9] Russell, E. L., Chiang, L. H., & Braatz, R. D. (2000). Fault detection in industrial processes using canonical variate analysis and dynamic principal component analysis. Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 51(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(00)00058-7
- [10] Karnik, N. N., Mendel, J. M., & Liang, Q. (1999). Type-2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE transactions on fuzzy systems, 7(6), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.811231
- [11] Liang, Q., & Mendel, J. M. (2000). Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: Theory and design. IEEE transactions on fuzzy systems, 8(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.873577
- [12] Karnik, N. N., & Mendel, J. M. (2001). Centroid of a type-2 fuzzy set. Information sciences, 132(1), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(01)00069-X
- [13] Tadić, D., & Komatina, N. (2025). A hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL-MABAC approach for strategic failure management in automotive manufacturing. Journal of engineering management and systems engineering (JEMSE), 4(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.56578/jemse040102
- [14] Reinartz, C., Kulahci, M., & Ravn, O. (2021). An extended Tennessee Eastman simulation dataset for fault-detection and decision support systems. Computers & chemical engineering, 149, 107281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107281
- [15] Demšar, J. (2006). Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of machine learning research, 7(1), 1–30. https://jmlr.org/papers/v7/demsar06a.html