Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Explainability for Fault Detection System in Chemical Processes

Georgios Gravanis, Dimitrios Kyriakou, Spyros Voutetakis, Simira Papadopoulou, Konstantinos DiamantarasPublished Feb 18, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

In this work, we apply and compare two state-of-the-art eXplainability Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods, the Integrated Gradients (IG) and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), that explain the fault diagnosis decisions of a highly accurate Long Short-Time Memory (LSTM) classifier. The classifier is trained to detect faults in a benchmark non-linear chemical process, the Tennessee Eastman Process (TEP). It is highlighted how XAI methods can help identify the subsystem of the process where the fault occurred. Using our knowledge of the process, we note that in most cases the same features are indicated as the most important for the decision, while insome cases the SHAP method seems to be more informative and closer to the root cause of the fault. Finally, since the used XAI methods are model-agnostic, the proposed approach is not limited to the specific process and can also be used in similar problems.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
In this work, we apply and compare two state-of-the-art eXplainability Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods, the Integrated Gradients (IG) and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), that explain the fault diagnosis decisions of a highly accurate Long Short-Time Memory (LSTM) classifier.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Strong
Stars
0
Last push
Aug 24, 2026 (3d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
  • Low confidence match
Maintenance
Recently updated
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
0
Last push
May 2, 2026 (117d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX