Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

ST-HCSS: Deep Spatio-Temporal Hypergraph Convolutional Neural Network for Soft Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hypergraph neural network that learns its own sensor-relation graph outperforms eight soft-sensing baselines on the Cranfield multiphase-flow process.

desk verdict A genuinely new architecture for soft sensing, but the hypergraph convolution as written is undefined due to a matrix dimension mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02016 v1 pith:O5SOFPA6 submitted 2025-01-02 cs.LG cs.AIeess.SP

Hwa Hui Tew , Fan Ding , Gaoxuan Li , Junn Yong Loo , Chee-Ming Ting , Ze Yang Ding , Chee Pin Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIeess.SP
keywords softsensorhypergraphneuralnetworkspatio-temporallearninggatedtemporalconvolutionstructuremultiphaseflowindustrialprocessmonitoringtime-seriesregression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Soft sensors estimate hard-to-measure process variables from easier-to-measure sensor readings, and this paper argues that such estimation improves when the model sees sensor interactions as higher-order hyperedges rather than plain pairwise graph edges. The authors propose ST-HCSS, a spatio-temporal hypergraph convolutional network that learns its own hypergraph structure from data using k-nearest-neighbour grouping with distance-based weights, then stacks gated temporal convolutions with spectral hypergraph convolutions. On the Cranfield multiphase-flow process, they report that ST-HCSS outperforms eight existing soft-sensing baselines on all four evaluation metrics across three dominant process variables. They also show that the learned hypergraph adjacency groups sensors by type, aligning with ground-truth data correlations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted hypergraph $\mathcal{G} = (V, E, W)$—a graph whose edges can join more than two nodes—with sensors as nodes $v \in V$, data-driven hyperedges $e \in E$ formed by k-nearest-neighbour grouping, and incidence weights $W_{ij}$ set by a Gaussian kernel of the pairwise sensor distance. The key operation is the spectral hypergraph convolution $X^{l+1} = \sigma_r\left(D_v^{-1/2} H W D_e^{-1} H^{\mathsf{T}} D_v^{-1/2} X^l \Theta^l\right)$, where $H$ is the incidence matrix and $D_v, D_e$ are vertex and hyperedge degree matrices; this lets the network aggregate information along multi-node hyperedges. Around this, the architecture wraps a multi-view MLP mixer for global time and feature mixing and a stack of gated temporal convolutions that apply a causal filter with a sigmoid gate, so temporal and hypergraph information are updated alternately across layers.

What would settle it

Run an ablation on the same Cranfield data that replaces the hypergraph convolution with an ordinary pairwise graph convolution on the same sensor nodes, keeping the multi-view mixer and gated temporal convolution fixed; if the NMAE, NRMSE, MAPE, and R² values barely change, the hypergraph structure is not what is producing the reported improvement. A second check is to compute the normalized adjacency $N = D_v^{-1/2} H W D_e^{-1} H^{\mathsf{T}} D_v^{-1/2}$ used in Eq. (9) and test whether it is symmetric and positive semidefinite, since a standard hypergraph Laplacian requires this and a violation would show the spectral convolution is not operating on a valid Laplacian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a soft sensor built on a learned spatio-temporal hypergraph can beat both conventional deep soft sensors and graph-based spatio-temporal models on a real industrial benchmark. Concretely, ST-HCSS first converts sliding windows of auxiliary sensor data into a weighted hypergraph whose hyperedges connect each sensor to its k nearest neighbours in feature space, with Gaussian-decay weights. A multi-view mixer then extracts global temporal and cross-sensor features, and a stack of gated temporal convolutions and spectral hypergraph convolutions propagates information across time steps and hyperedges. The authors state this is the first soft-sensing framework based on a spatio-temporal hypergraph, and report that it consistently achieves the lowest NMAE, NRMSE, and MAPE and the highest R² for pressure, input air flow, and valve-position targets on the Cranfield multiphase-flow facility.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that grouping nearby sensors into hyperedges reveals the real multi-sensor relationships that drive the target variables, and that the convolution built on those groups is mathematically sound; if either fails, the reported gains over graph-based models would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, soft sensors can be deployed without expert-drawn process topology: the hypergraph structure is learned from data, so the method transfers to processes where the sensor interaction graph is unknown.
  • The consistent margin over graph-based and hypergraph-only baselines implies that combining multi-view mixing and gated temporal convolution with hypergraph convolution is a better recipe for multivariate industrial time series than using any of these components alone.
  • Since the learned hypergraph adjacency clusters sensors into pressure, flow-rate, and valve groups that match data correlations, the model doubles as a structure-discovery tool for process monitoring.
  • On the Cranfield multiphase-flow benchmark specifically, the reported results would make ST-HCSS the new state of the art for estimating these three dominant variables, with lower error and higher R² than eight prior soft sensors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same spatio-temporal hypergraph architecture should transfer to other industrial multivariate regression tasks such as remaining-useful-life prediction or fault diagnosis, which the paper does not test.
  • The structural-analysis result suggests a monitoring use the authors do not develop: tracking how learned hyperedge weights drift over time could flag sensor degradation or process-state changes before the target variables show it.
  • Because the paper evaluates only one facility with 24 sensors and 20 setpoints, the claimed superiority is a single-benchmark result; a multi-process study would show whether the hypergraph advantage generalises.
  • The weight matrix $W$ in the model is per-incidence rather than the diagonal hyperedge-weight matrix used in the standard hypergraph Laplacian; the paper does not resolve whether this still yields a valid spectral convolution, so part of the reported gain could come from the mixer and temporal modules rather than the hypergraph itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ST-HCSS, a soft-sensing model that combines a multi-view MLP mixer, gated temporal convolution, and hypergraph convolution to predict three dominant process variables in the Cranfield multiphase flow facility. Hypergraph structure is learned unsupervisedly via KNN on sensor features, and the model is evaluated against eight baselines, reporting lower NMAE, NRMSE, MAPE and higher R² for all three target variables. The authors also analyze the learned hypergraph adjacency against data correlations and release code on GitHub.

Significance. If the technical presentation is corrected, the paper would offer a useful new application of hypergraph neural networks to soft sensing, with a plausible architectural contribution (multi-view mixing plus gated temporal and hypergraph convolution), a real industrial benchmark, and publicly available code. The experimental gains on the Cranfield benchmark are consistent across all reported metrics, which is a positive sign. However, the significance is currently tempered by a load-bearing inconsistency in the definition of the hypergraph convolution, missing implementation details that prevent reproduction, and a structural analysis that is partly self-consistency rather than independent validation. The claimed state-of-the-art status therefore needs the technical issues resolved before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B and Eq. (9)] The hyperedge weight matrix W is defined in Eq. (2) as a |V|×|E| matrix with entries w(v_i, e_j), but the spectral hypergraph convolution in Eq. (9) computes H W D_e^{-1} H^T, which requires W to be a diagonal |E|×|E| matrix; as written, the product H W is undefined due to incompatible inner dimensions. In addition, the vertex degree d(v)=Σ_e h(v,e) is defined without W, whereas the standard HGNN formulation cited as [24] uses weighted degrees. Because Eq. (9) is the core hypergraph mechanism underlying the claimed superiority over HGNN, this inconsistency must be resolved by redefining W (or by introducing a weighted incidence matrix that is used consistently in both the degree definitions and the convolution).
  2. [Section III-B, Implementation Details] The KNN neighborhood size k used to construct hyperedges in Eq. (1) and the number of stacked gated temporal/hypergraph convolution blocks are not reported, even though Fig. 1 shows multiple stacked blocks and the model depth directly affects capacity and performance. Without these values the experiments cannot be reproduced from the text; please report them explicitly in the implementation details or in Table I.
  3. [Section III, Structural Analysis and Fig. 3] The comparison between the learned hypergraph adjacency and the data correlation is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation, because the hypergraph is constructed directly from the same input features via KNN and then shown to resemble the correlation of those features. The claim that the learned hypergraph representations 'align well' with sensor correlations would be strengthened by comparing against a domain-defined grouping of sensors or by showing that the discovered structure has predictive value beyond the construction mechanism.
  4. [Section III, Overall Performance and Table I] All results appear to be point estimates from a single run, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests; several improvements are small (e.g., R²=0.910 vs 0.898 for PT501, and 0.955 vs 0.952 for VC501), so the statement that ST-HCSS 'consistently outperformed all the baselines across every metrics' is not statistically supported as presented. Please report multiple-seed results or paired significance tests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The dilation parameter d in w ⋆_d x is never defined, and the summation uses x_{t-τ d} without explaining how dilation is applied; please clarify or remove the subscript.
  2. [References and Table I] Reference [17] is cited as the HGNN baseline in Table I and Section III-B, but [17] is a soft-sensor paper by Zhang et al.; the hypergraph neural network baseline should instead cite Feng et al. [24].
  3. [Section II-B, Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The average pairwise distance Δ is written as (1/|V|) Σ_i D(v_i, v_j), which depends on the unspecified index j; define the average over all unordered pairs. Also, W is described as 'the weight of the connections between node i and j' after being introduced as hyperedge weights; this graph-style wording is inconsistent with the hypergraph notation.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor grammatical errors (e.g., 'could leads', 'allows a more accurate characterization', and subject-verb agreement in the abstract); please copyedit the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Structural validation is circular because the hypergraph adjacency is computed from the same input features whose correlations it is then said to match, but the main held-out soft-sensing comparison is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section II-B, Eqs. (1)-(2) and Section III, Structural Analysis, Fig. 3]
    "w(vi, ej) = ( exp(− D(vi,vj)^2 / △ ), if vi ∈ KNN(vj), 0, otherwise (2) ... Fig. 3 compares the normalized weighted hypergraph adjacency to the ground-truth data correlation for the three dominant variables. Consistent with the data correlation, the weighted hypergraph adjacency exhibit dense edge connections within sensor groups."

    The hypergraph adjacency presented as validating the model in Fig. 3 is not an independent or learned quantity: Eq. (2) defines each hyperedge weight directly from the Euclidean distance D(vi,vj) between the raw sensor feature vectors, and Eq. (1) selects hyperedges by KNN on those same vectors. For standardized features, Euclidean distance is a monotone function of correlation (d^2 = 2(1-r) for zero-mean unit-variance vectors), so the adjacency is a deterministic transform of the very data correlations used as the comparison target. The observed alignment is therefore guaranteed by construction rather than evidence that the structure-learning module discovered an external ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is that ST-HCSS outperforms baselines on the Cranfield multiphase flow benchmark. That claim is supported by Table I, which reports NMAE, NRMSE, MAPE, and R2 on a held-out test split with a standard 60-20-20 partition, against eight baselines. Nothing in that comparison is fitted to the test labels, so the main predictive result is not circular. The only load-bearing circularity I can exhibit by quoting the paper is the 'Structural Analysis' section: the normalized weighted hypergraph adjacency is constructed from the input features via Eqs. (1)-(2) (KNN plus a Gaussian of Euclidean distances), and Fig. 3 then shows that this adjacency resembles the correlation of those same features. Since the construction already encodes distance-to-correlation equivalence, the agreement is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation of the learned hypergraph representation. This does not invalidate the held-out soft-sensing results, so the overall circularity score is low. A separate dimension-mismatch concern in Eq. (9) regarding whether W is |V|-by-|E| or diagonal is a correctness/reproducibility issue rather than a circularity issue, and it is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on several assumptions: that Euclidean distance between sliding-window sensor series is a valid proxy for sensor interactions, that the defined W yields a valid hypergraph convolution, and that results on one facility generalize. The KNN size and window size are user-chosen hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • KNN neighborhood size k = not reported
    Controls hyperedge construction in Eq. (1)-(2); value not stated in implementation details.
  • Sliding window size W = 85
    Set in implementation details; choice affects temporal context.
  • GTC kernel size K = 7
    Selected via hyperparameter analysis (Fig. 2).
  • Number of multi-view mixer blocks = 2
    Selected via ablation (Fig. 2).
  • Number of stacked GTC/hypergraph blocks = not reported
    Architecture depth not specified in text; figure suggests multiple blocks.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Euclidean distance between sensor time-series within a sliding window is a meaningful proxy for inter-sensor interaction
    Used to construct hyperedges in Eq. (1)-(2); no theoretical justification or sensitivity analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Hypergraph convolution formula in Eq. (9) is valid with the defined W matrix
    The standard HGNN formulation requires a diagonal hyperedge weight matrix; here W is defined as a dense |V| by |E| matrix, which is not reconciled.
  • domain assumption The Cranfield MFP dataset is representative of industrial soft-sensing problems
    Generalization claim rests on one facility with three target variables.
  • standard math Spectral hypergraph convolution theory from [23], [24] is correct and applicable
    Relies on eigen-decomposition of normalized hypergraph Laplacian.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ST-HCSS: Deep Spatio-Temporal Hypergraph Convolutional Neural Network for Soft Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5SOFPA6

@misc{pith2026250102016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ST-HCSS: Deep Spatio-Temporal Hypergraph Convolutional Neural Network for Soft Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5SOFPA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02016}
}
read the original abstract

Higher-order sensor networks are more accurate in characterizing the nonlinear dynamics of sensory time-series data in modern industrial settings by allowing multi-node connections beyond simple pairwise graph edges. In light of this, we propose a deep spatio-temporal hypergraph convolutional neural network for soft sensing (ST-HCSS). In particular, our proposed framework is able to construct and leverage a higher-order graph (hypergraph) to model the complex multi-interactions between sensor nodes in the absence of prior structural knowledge. To capture rich spatio-temporal relationships underlying sensor data, our proposed ST-HCSS incorporates stacked gated temporal and hypergraph convolution layers to effectively aggregate and update hypergraph information across time and nodes. Our results validate the superiority of ST-HCSS compared to existing state-of-the-art soft sensors, and demonstrates that the learned hypergraph feature representations aligns well with the sensor data correlations. The code is available at https://github.com/htew0001/ST-HCSS.git

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the designed architecture. It begins with the (A.) raw sensor data preprocessed by (B.) that transforms into a sliding window format. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap of normalized weighted hypergraph adjacency and data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Multi-source unsupervised soft sensor based on joint distribution alignment and mapping structure preservation,

    Z. Zhang, G. Yan, T. Qiao, Y . Fang, and Y . Pang, “Multi-source unsupervised soft sensor based on joint distribution alignment and mapping structure preservation,” Journal of Process Control , vol. 109, pp. 44–59, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [24]

    Hypergraph neural net- works,

    Y . Feng, H. You, Z. Zhang, R. Ji, and Y . Gao, “Hypergraph neural net- works,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 3558–3565

    2019

  3. [1]

    Dual attention-based encoder–decoder: A customized sequence-to-sequence learning for soft sensor development,

    L. Feng, C. Zhao, and Y . Sun, “Dual attention-based encoder–decoder: A customized sequence-to-sequence learning for soft sensor development,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 3306–3317, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    Virtual sensor development for mul- tioutput nonlinear processes based on bilinear neighborhood preserving regression model with localized construction,

    C. Wei, W. Shao, and Z. Song, “Virtual sensor development for mul- tioutput nonlinear processes based on bilinear neighborhood preserving regression model with localized construction,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2500–2510, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    A review on soft sensors for monitoring, control, and optimization of industrial processes,

    Y . Jiang, S. Yin, J. Dong, and O. Kaynak, “A review on soft sensors for monitoring, control, and optimization of industrial processes,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 12 868–12 881, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    A zero-shot soft sensor modeling approach using adversarial learning for robustness against sensor fault,

    Z. Y . Ding, J. Y . Loo, S. G. Nurzaman, C. P. Tan, and V . M. Baskaran, “A zero-shot soft sensor modeling approach using adversarial learning for robustness against sensor fault,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 5891–5901, 2022

    2022

  7. [5]

    Data-driven soft sensors in the process industry,

    P. Kadlec, B. Gabrys, and S. Strandt, “Data-driven soft sensors in the process industry,” Computers & chemical engineering , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 795–814, 2009

    2009

  8. [6]

    Consistent-contrastive network with temporality-awareness for robust-to-anomaly industrial soft sensor,

    S. Chang, C. Zhao, and K. Li, “Consistent-contrastive network with temporality-awareness for robust-to-anomaly industrial soft sensor,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–12, 2021

    2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [7]

    Soft sensor modeling method based on target-guided related feature learning and its application,

    Z. Jiang, J. Zhu, D. Pan, H. Yu, W. Gui, and K. Zhou, “Soft sensor modeling method based on target-guided related feature learning and its application,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–14, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    A survey on deep learning for data-driven soft sensors,

    Q. Sun and Z. Ge, “A survey on deep learning for data-driven soft sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    Deep learning- based feature representation and its application for soft sensor modeling with variable-wise weighted sae,

    X. Yuan, B. Huang, Y . Wang, C. Yang, and W. Gui, “Deep learning- based feature representation and its application for soft sensor modeling with variable-wise weighted sae,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3235–3243, 2018

    2018

  4. [10]

    Gated stacked target-related autoencoder: A novel deep feature extraction and layerwise ensemble method for industrial soft sensor application,

    Q. Sun and Z. Ge, “Gated stacked target-related autoencoder: A novel deep feature extraction and layerwise ensemble method for industrial soft sensor application,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 3457–3468, 2022

    2022

  5. [11]

    Grassnet: Graph soft sensing neural networks,

    Y . Huang, C. Zhang, J. Yella, S. Petrov, X. Qian, Y . Tang, X. Zhu, and S. Bom, “Grassnet: Graph soft sensing neural networks,” in 2021 IEEE Big Data. IEEE, 2021, pp. 746–756

    2021

  6. [12]

    Domain adaptation graph convolution network for quality inferring of batch processes,

    J. Zhu, M. Jia, Y . Zhang, W. Zhou, H. Deng, and Y . Liu, “Domain adaptation graph convolution network for quality inferring of batch processes,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , vol. 243, p. 105028, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    Multichannel diffusion graph convolutional network for the prediction of endpoint composition in the converter steelmaking process,

    L. Feng, C. Zhao, Y . Li, M. Zhou, H. Qiao, and C. Fu, “Multichannel diffusion graph convolutional network for the prediction of endpoint composition in the converter steelmaking process,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 70, pp. 1–13, 2020

    2020

  8. [14]

    Soft sensor-based deep temporal-graph convolutional network for applications in human motion tracking,

    J. Wang, X. Li, Y . Cui, K. Mai, Y . Wang, M. Song, C. Wang, Z. Yi, and X. Wu, “Soft sensor-based deep temporal-graph convolutional network for applications in human motion tracking,”IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Dynamic graph-based adaptive learning for online industrial soft sensor with mutable spatial coupling relations,

    K. Zhu and C. Zhao, “Dynamic graph-based adaptive learning for online industrial soft sensor with mutable spatial coupling relations,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 9614–9622, 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    Deep graph network for process soft sensor development,

    M. Jia, Y . Dai, D. Xu, T. Yang, Y . Yao, and Y . Liu, “Deep graph network for process soft sensor development,” in 2021 8th International Conference on Information, Cybernetics, and Computational Social Systems (ICCSS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  11. [18]

    Multisensor fusion on hyper- graph for fault diagnosis,

    X. Yan, Z. Shi, Z. Sun, and C.-A. Zhang, “Multisensor fusion on hyper- graph for fault diagnosis,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Temporal multi-resolution hypergraph attention network for remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings,

    J. Wu, D. He, J. Li, J. Miao, X. Li, H. Li, and S. Shan, “Temporal multi-resolution hypergraph attention network for remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 247, p. 110143, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Industrial time series determi- native anomaly detection based on constraint hypergraph,

    Z. Liang, H. Wang, X. Ding, and T. Mu, “Industrial time series determi- native anomaly detection based on constraint hypergraph,” Knowledge- Based Systems, vol. 233, p. 107548, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision,

    I. O. Tolstikhin, N. Houlsby, A. Kolesnikov, L. Beyer, X. Zhai, T. Un- terthiner, J. Yung, A. Steiner, D. Keysers, J. Uszkoreitet al., “Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 24 261–24 272, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  16. [23]

    Learning with hypergraphs: Clus- tering, classification, and embedding,

    D. Zhou, J. Huang, and B. Sch ¨olkopf, “Learning with hypergraphs: Clus- tering, classification, and embedding,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Robust data-driven soft sensor based on iteratively weighted least squares support vector regression optimized by the cuckoo optimization algorithm,

    M. Behnasr and H. Jazayeri-Rad, “Robust data-driven soft sensor based on iteratively weighted least squares support vector regression optimized by the cuckoo optimization algorithm,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 35–41, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Soft-sensing model development using plsr-based dynamic extreme learning machine with an enhanced hidden layer,

    Y .-L. He, Y . Xu, and Q.-X. Zhu, “Soft-sensing model development using plsr-based dynamic extreme learning machine with an enhanced hidden layer,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , vol. 154, pp. 101–111, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    A data-driven soft sensor based on multilayer perceptron neural network with a double lasso approach,

    Y . Fan, B. Tao, Y . Zheng, and S.-S. Jang, “A data-driven soft sensor based on multilayer perceptron neural network with a double lasso approach,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 3972–3979, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Graph convolutional network soft sensor for process quality prediction,

    M. Jia, D. Xu, T. Yang, Y . Liu, and Y . Yao, “Graph convolutional network soft sensor for process quality prediction,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 123, pp. 12–25, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Statistical process monitoring of a multiphase flow facility,

    C. Ruiz-C ´arcel, Y . Cao, D. Mba, L. Lao, and R. Samuel, “Statistical process monitoring of a multiphase flow facility,” Control Eng. Pract. , vol. 42, pp. 74–88, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.