Process Anomaly Detection for Sparsely Labeled Events in Nuclear Power Plants
An essential aspect of online monitoring, subtle anomaly detection increases the detection lead time for equipment failure and enables a nuclear power plant (NPP) to mitigate unexpected partial or full outages, resulting in significant cost saving to the plant. Once an anomaly is detected by plant staff, its cause and severity are investigated. Because the vast majority of anomalies require some level of investigation, including some that require time-consuming examination, before they are passed over to the engineering organization for further analysis, plants are often equipped with tools to assist the staff in performing anomaly detection. Those tools operate as a black box and are often based on statistical methods that establish sensor correlations using preconfigured mathematical models and flag correlation deviations as anomalies. Due to the number of anomalies detected at a given NPP on a daily basis, a significant number of flagged anomalies usually await examination for days or weeks. A primary cause of this backlog is that the methods used by the tools generate many false positives. Though this is usually attributed to oversensitive model settings due to very narrow normal operation bands, it can also be associated with the model development being inadequate for the process being monitored, or with missing model inputs that could have explained misclassified positives. The performance of anomaly detection tools impacts their plant acceptance and utilization, especially when the effort to address false positives generated by the tool depletes the value or cost saved by using that tool. Thus, means to advance anomaly detection performance have been investigated by the Department of Energy’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability program. Previous and ongoing efforts have targeted unsupervised machine-learning (ML) methods, which do not require the labeling of any data fed into the ML model. By contrast, in supervised anomaly detection methods, every data point is labeled as either a normal or abnormal process condition, and the model is trained to replicate the classification process. Supervised methods usually outperform unsupervised methods, due to the added value in differentiating normal from anomalous states of the monitored process. An NPP’s corrective action program requires it to track and document, via a dedicated report, the resolution of any issues that occur within the plant. Once created, each report is reviewed by a plant screening committee, and several classifications and decisions are made. Recently, a collaborating NPP developed an artificial intelligence and ML-based classifier to categorize a condition report (CR) into classes that can serve to label the data as normal or anomalous. Applying CRs as labels represents a semi-supervised use case. Semi-supervised ML assumes that labels exist for some data points (i.e., labeled anomalies, in this case) but not for the rest. In this effort, semi-supervised ML methods were used to fuse data from CRs with anomaly detection methods in order to test the hypothesis that partially labeled anomalies would improve the accuracy of the anomaly detection methods. Specifically, two methods were used. The first is the deep Semi-supervised Anomaly Detection (deep SAD) method, which can handle labels ranging from fully unsupervised to fully supervised cases. The second is a newly designed ML method developed specifically for this effort and referred to as the high-order feature (HOF)-based method. To evaluate these two methods in controlled environments, synthetic data generators were developed and used. The first datasets used a spring-mass-damper (SMD) system simulator commonly found in mechanical engineering references. This was used to create two use cases: a one- and a three-mass system. Anomalies were introduced by changing the spring and damper coefficients while the system was actuated by random forces. The second datasets used the commercial Dymola-Modelica software to build a simplified nuclear reactor model. Anomalies were added in the form of corrupted sensor readings and/or control commands. The deep SAD method was tested using the SMD system, while the HOF method was tested using both datasets. Application of the deep SAD semi-supervised ML method demonstrated that labels can generate increased confidence in detecting true anomalies. This helped increase the number of true positives and decrease the number of false negatives—something that would aid in addressing the backlog of possible anomalies. Application of the HOF method demonstrated that labels can aid in down selecting from a candidate set of features to a more optimal subset in order to better differentiate between normal and anomalous conditions.