Research Article

Interval width fuzzy aggregation for streaming process monitoring on the Tennessee Eastman benchmark

Authors

  • Sanaz Hami Hassan Kiyadeh Department of Mathematics, The University of Alabama, Alabama, USA.
  • Ramin Goudarzi Karim * Department of CIS, Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.
  • Habibeh Karimi Department of Research Center, Shiroud Municipality, Mazandaran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.48313/uda.v3i3.113

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 comparison
References (15)
  1. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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

Article Metrics

How to Cite

Hami Hassan Kiyadeh, S., Goudarzi Karim, R., & Karimi, H. (2026). Interval width fuzzy aggregation for streaming process monitoring on the Tennessee Eastman benchmark. Uncertainty Discourse and Applications, 3(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.48313/uda.v3i3.113

Similar Articles

1-10 of 67

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.