Employing machine learning techniques in monitoring autocorrelated profiles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Employing machine learning techniques in monitoring autocorrelated profiles Ali Yeganeh 1 •Arne Johannssen 1 •Nataliya Chukhrova 2 •Saddam Akber Abbasi 3,4,5 • Farhad Pourpanah 6 Received: 31 October 2022 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published online: 29 April 2023 The Author(s) 2023 Abstract In profile monitoring, it is usually assumed that the observations between or within each profile are independent of each other. However, this assumption is often violated in manufacturing practice, and it is of utmost importance to carefully consider autocorrelation effects in the underlying models for profile monitoring. For this reason, various statistical control charts have been proposed to monitor profiles when betweenor within-data is correlated in Phase II, in which the main aim is to develop control charts with quicker detection ability. As a novel approach, this study aims to employ machine learning techniques as control charts instead of statistical approaches in monitoring profiles with between-profile autocorrelations. Specifically, new input features based on conventional statistical control chart statistics and normalized estimated parameters are defined that are capable of adequately accounting for the between-autocorrelation effect of profiles. In addition, six machine learning techniques are extended and compared by means of Monte Carlo simulations. The simulation results indicate that machine learning techniques can obtain more accurate results compared with statistical control charts. Moreover, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems outperform other machine learning techniques and the conventional statistical control charts. Keywords Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system Artificial neural network Deep learning Long short-term memory  Statistical process monitoring Support vector regression 1 Introduction Statistical process monitoring (SPM) is usually employed for industrial processes to omit assignable causes that deteriorate the product outcome. SPM is the major field for controlling process variations to eventuate lower costs in waste, scrap, rework and claims, better quality, and more insights into the capability of the process. Seven main tools, entailing scatter diagrams, Pareto charts, control charts, histograms, cause-and-effect diagrams, check sheets and stratification, are utilized in SPM to implement inspection and monitoring procedures [1]. Among them, &Arne Johannssen [email protected] Ali Yeganeh [email protected] Nataliya Chukhrova [email protected] Saddam Akber Abbasi [email protected] Farhad Pourpanah [email protected] 1 Faculty of Business Administration, University of Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 2 HafenCity University, 20457 Hamburg, Germany 3 Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar 4 Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar 5 Statistical Consulting Unit, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar 6 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Center for Computer Vision and Deep Learning, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada 123 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-08483-3(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) control charts are the most successful and effective tools for quality control of manufacturing processes [2–4]. To employ a control chart for process monitoring, two phases entailing Phase I and II should be initially defined. In Phase I, it is tried to achieve proper estimations of the process parameters, whereas Phase II monitoring aims to find assignable causes in which the process situation changes from In-Control (IC) to Out-of-Control (OC) state [5–9]. Average Run Length (ARL) and Standard Deviation of Run Length (SDRL) are two common performance indicators in Phase II. The ARL is the average number of samples to be obtained by the predefined control chart before the chart triggers an OC signal. Thus, a control chart with larger (smaller) values of the ARL is to be preferred when the underlying process is in IC (OC) state [the more common notation is ARL 0 (ARL 1 )] [10–12]. In addition, the SDRL is defined in a similar way as a secondary criterion in Phase II (i.e., SDRL 0 and SDRL 1 ). There are two common approaches to monitor a manufacturing processes with the help of control charts namely monitoring quality characteristics and profile monitoring [13]. In this paper, we focus on profile monitoring. Here, the quality of a process or product is modelled via a functional relationship between a response (dependent) variable and one or more explanatory (independent) variable(s) [14]. The aim of profile monitoring is to check the stability of a predefined IC relationship (or profile) over time, and it is essential to reach a true OC signal as soon as possible when the IC model shifts to an unknown OC profile [15]. Different IC models can be employed due to the nature of the underlying problem, such as circular [16], linear [5,17–22], logistic [23–25], nonlinear [26], nonparametric [27,28], multichannel [29], polynomial [30] or quadratic [31]. Among them, linear profiles have received more attention in the literature [32,33]. The majority of previous studies in linear profile monitoring is based on the independency assumption regarding within or between profiles in relation to the error terms. However, this assumption is often violated in manufacturing practice that is characterized by autocorrelated profiles and consequently, conventional approaches may lead to inaccurate outcomes for this type of profiles. Autocorrelated profiles consist of withinand betweencorrelation models in the related literature [34–37]. In the first group, Soleimani, Noorossana and Amiri [38] developed four control charts including T 2 and three well-known Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) charts considering the first order Autoregressive (AR) model, i.e., AR(1). The results showed the superiority of EWMA-based approaches over T 2 . Autoregressive Moving Average (ARMA), Vector ARMA (VARMA) etc. are other more complex models that have been developed in this field [39–43]. Due to the higher potential for applications of the second group, this paper focuses on between-profile autocorrelation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the pioneering work is Noorossana, Amiri and Soleimani [44], in which they developed T 2 , EWMA of residuals (EWMA/ R) and transformed individual EWMA (EWMA-3) control charts for situations where autocorrelation effects exist between profiles. Similar to Soleimani, Noorossana and Amiri [38], they concluded that EWMA-based methods outperform T 2 . Wang and Lai [45] aggregated the individual EWMA statistics to a Multivariate EWMA (MEWMA) control chart for profiles with between-autocorrelation, and it has been shown that MEWMA outperforms T 2 . Khedmati and Niaki [46] considered both linear and polynomial profiles; they first utilized the U statistic for removing the effect of autocorrelation and then developed a T 2 -based control chart. The experimental results showed that this method performs better than conventional T 2 control charts, but comparisons with EWMA are missing. Koosha and Amiri [47] proposed a similar T 2 -based control chart for monitoring autocorrelated logistic profiles. Wang and Huang [48] modified the estimation procedure of the EWMA approach, and the simulation results demonstrated that this scheme has a faster detection ability than that of conventional EWMA. From the literature, it can be inferred that the probability of occurring autocorrelations in practical applications is very high. Therefore, an early detection of OC conditions is more important than simulation results, as a delay in detection may result in the production of nonconformities and additional costs. However, the conventional control charts such as T 2 , EWMA/R and EWMA-3 are not able to perform well in line with this aim as their performance deteriorate in the occurrence of autocorrelation in comparison with simple situations; for example, it can be referred to the results of ARL 1 in Noorossana, Amiri and Soleimani [44] versus Kim et al. [20]. Hence, proposing a novel control chart with a tangible ability in reduction of the OC signaling time in autocorrelated profiles is crucial. To remedy this challenge, in recent years, several studies incorporated machine learning techniques in the SPM context in monitoring roundness [49], nonlinear [50–52], linear [53,54] and logistic 16322 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 [25,55,56] profiles. As a different approach, Chen et al. [57] employed a deep learning technique, called stacked denoising autoencoders, to monitor autocorrelated profiles. Specifically, this scheme extracts a number of features from the process using autoencoders, and then the extracted features are used to develop control charts based on T 2 and EWMA. In other words, the main task of their approach is to select proper features from the process, whereas the direct usage of machine learning techniques as a control chart would be more promising. As far as the authors know, there are no further articles where machine learning techniques are employed in monitoring autocorrelated profiles. The aim of this paper is to develop a robust control chart based on machine learning techniques to alleviate the above-mentioned challenges, i.e., reducing the values of the ARL 1 and SDRL 1 for autocorrelated linear profiles that can result in early detection of OC situations in Phase II. To achieve this, three combinations of input features based on the effect of the mean of responses, the mean of errors, and T 2 statistic, each in the current and previous sample, are defined to fed into the machine learning techniques for monitoring profiles with between-autocorrelation of first order, i.e., AR(1). Since each machine learning technique performs differently in tackling various problems, six machine learning techniques ranging from shallow to deep structures including adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), artificial neural network (ANN) with BackPropagation (BP) training, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), long short-term memory (LSTM) network, Radial Basis Function (RBF) network and support vector regression (SVR), are employed to find the most appropriate one. To sum up, the main contributions of this paper are as follows: •Improving the detection ability of Phase II control charts for monitoring linear autocorrelated profiles with the help of machine learning techniques, •Defining different combinations of input features based on the effect of the mean of responses, the mean of errors, and T 2 statistic, each in the current and previous sample, for monitoring the between-autocorrelation effect of profiles, •Evaluating the performance of the defined input features and finding the best combination using the proposed machine learning-based control chart, and •Identification of the most appropriate machine learning technique under the most suitable input combination for this problem. The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, definitions of autocorrelated linear profiles are discussed. Section 3presents the framework of the proposed approach. Results of simulation studies regarding performance comparisons are given and discussed in Sect. 4. To show the effectiveness of our method, an illustrative example is given in Sect. 5. Finally, Sect. 6 gives some conclusions and suggests future research directions. 2 Preliminaries In this section, first, the general relations of linear profiles with between-autocorrelation error terms are presented. Then, three common control charts, namely T 2 , EWMA/R and EWMA-3, are briefly introduced. Finally, details about the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimation of the parameters are discussed. These basics are necessary against the backdrop that (1) our proposed method employs the T 2 statistic as input feature, and (2) these conventional charts are used for comparison purposes in our analyses. 2.1 The linear autocorrelated profile in Phase II A common linear profile, which is the simplest but the most fundamental type of profiles [19], is defined as: Yij ¼A0þA1Xiþeij;eij N0;r2  ; i¼1;2;...;n;j¼1;2;...; ð1Þ where X i represent the explanatory variable in a linear profile and the response variable Y ij is the quality characteristic under study. The parameters of the above IC model (intercept A 0 , slope A 1 and error variance r 2 ) are estimated from Phase I samples, and it is usually assumed that sample size nand independent variable X i are fixed in each profile. When there is an AR(1) structure between the random error terms, (1) becomes: Yij ¼A0þA1Xiþeij;eij ¼/eij1ðÞ þaij;aij N0;r2  ; i¼1;2; :::; n;j¼1;2;...; ð2Þ where /is a constant autocorrelation coefficient, which is assumed to be known in Phase II. To monitor the above IC profile, we briefly present three common approaches in the following subsections. Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16323 123 2.2 The T 2 control chart for monitoring autocorrelated profiles in Phase II By some calculations, it can be easily shown that the estimated responses are obtained in the j th generated sample over time as follows [44]: ^ yij ¼/yij1ðÞ þ1/ðÞðA0þA1XiÞ:ð3Þ Thus, the empirical residuals can be written as: eij ¼^ yij yij:ð4Þ Noorossana, Amiri and Soleimani [44] used a modified form of the T 2 statistics proposed by Kang and Albin [14] in a simple linear profile: t2 j¼ejX 1 e e0 j;ej¼e1j;e2j;...;enj  ;ð5Þ where P e is the symmetric n9nmatrix r 2 I. Since the chart statistic ðt2 j) is ensured to be larger than zero, it is compared with a predefined Upper Control Limit (UCL T ) to reach an OC signal. Note that the Lower Control Limit (LCL T ) is equal to 0. 2.3 The EWMA/R control chart for monitoring autocorrelated profiles in Phase II In the EWMA/R control chart, two simultaneous statistics monitor the generated profiles. The first statistic is related to the mean of the residuals and is defined as follows [44,53]: zj¼hejþð1hÞzðj1Þ;ej¼1 nX n i¼1 eij;ð6Þ In (6), it holds z 0 = 0, and his the EWMA constant that usually has a value between 0.1 and 0.9 [20]. Following previous works [21,53,54,58], his set to 0.2 in this paper. The second statistic of the EWMA/R chart is the range of the empirical residuals defined by [37,48]: rj¼maxðeijÞminðeijÞ:ð7Þ The EWMA/R declares the process as IC if both of the following conditions are met [14]: Lrffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h 2hðÞn s\zj\Lrffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h 2hðÞn s; rd2Ld3 ðÞ\rj\rd2þLd3 ðÞ ð8Þ In (8), the value of Lis assigned to reach a predefined ARL 0 , while d 2 and d 3 are two constants that depend on the sample size (see Montgomery [1] for more details). 2.4 The EWMA-3 control chart for monitoring autocorrelated profiles in Phase II To solve the problem of dependency between the estimators in linear profiles, Kim, Mahmoud and Woodall [20] suggested to have zero mean explanatory variables, where the least squares estimators of slope and intercept are independent random variables. By this coding (transformation), the EWMA-3 approach has the IC model Yij ¼B0þB1Xdi þeij;eij ¼/eij1ðÞ þaij;eij N0;r2  ; i¼1;2;...;n;j¼1;2;...; ð9Þ where the coded explanatory variables (Xdi ¼XiX) lead to the transformed IC intercept B 0 =A 0 ?A 1 X,A0and A1 are defined as in (1). Note that the transformed IC slope is B 1 =A 1 in this approach. The OLS estimation of the parameters ( b B0j;b B1j;br2j) generates three separate EWMAbased errors for intercept (eIj), slope (eSj) and standard deviation (eij), as follows: eIj ¼^ B0jþ;^ B0j1ðÞ 1;ðÞB0; eSj ¼^ B1jþ;^ B1j1ðÞ 1;ðÞB1; eij ¼yij ;yij1ðÞ 1;ðÞB0þB1Xdi; MSEj¼1 nX n i¼1 e2 ij: ð10Þ Based on the OLS estimation, the Mean Square Error (MSE) of the jth profile is considered as the estimator of the error variance (for details see Kim et al. [20], Huwang et al. [59] and Yeganeh and Shadman [54]), thus, three chart statistics can be calculated as follows: EWMAIj ¼heIj þ1hðÞEWMAIj1ðÞ ; EWMASj ¼heSj þ1hðÞEWMASj1ðÞ ; EWMAEj ¼max hMSEj1  þ1hðÞEWMAEj1ðÞ ;0  : ð11Þ The control limits of the three separate control charts are designed as: 16324 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 UCLI¼LCLI¼LIrffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h n2hðÞ s UCLS¼LCLS¼LSrffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h n2hðÞ s UCLE¼LEffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi hVar MSEj  2hðÞ s ð12Þ It is worth noting that LCLE¼0, and some suggestions regarding VarðMSEjÞcan be found in Kim, Mahmoud and Woodall [20], Noorossana et al. [44] and Hosseinifard et al. [53]. EWMA-3 triggers an OC signal when at least one of the statistics exceed the control limits. The proposed constants entailing L I ,L S and L E are usually adjusted to reach a desired value of ARL 0 in such a way that each of the separate charts achieves an identical individual ARL 0 . 2.5 OLS estimation of the parameters Since the parameters estimated via OLS are employed as inputs of the machine learning techniques, some details on the OLS estimators are given below [20,21,53]. While the intercept of the original and the transformed model is estimated by b A0j¼Yjb A1jXand b B0j¼Yj, respectively, the slope parameter in both models is estimated via b A1j¼b B1j¼SXYj SXX , where SXYj¼Pn i¼1YijðXiXÞand SXY ¼ Pn i¼1ðXiXÞ2(with Yj¼1 nPn i¼1Yij and Xj¼1 nPn i¼1Xij). Note that the definition of MSE j based on (10) is equivalent to the estimator of the error variance. 3 The proposed control chart for monitoring autocorrelated profiles The basic idea in this paper is to use machine learning techniques instead of statistical control charts for monitoring profiles with between-autocorrelation. For this purpose, several features are extracted from the process to embed into the machine learning techniques. Using training patterns and the obtained control limits help to improve decision-making about the process. To employ a machine learning technique as a control chart, four main steps are defined in the following. In the first step, the structure of the input features and outputs of a machine learning technique are determined, and then, a training data set based on the input features and outputs is generated by simulating IC and OC profiles in the second step. The third step uses the generated data set to train a machine learning technique, and finally, by the definition of a control limit, the machine learning technique provides information about the process condition in the fourth step. Figure 1shows a step-by-step flowchart regarding the proposed method in monitoring autocorrelated profiles. Moreover, details of these steps are presented in the following subsections. 3.1 Defining the structure of input features and outputs Extracting proper input features is a key step in the implementation of machine learning techniques [60]. In the literature, various strategies have been employed for extracting features. For example, Chen et al. [57] and Sergin and Yan [51] used autoencoders to obtain Phase I information, which is not compatible for this study. Hosseinifard et al. [53] and Yeganeh and Shadman [54] suggested to take the OLS estimations of the linear profile parameters as input features. This input structure performs well in profiles without autocorrelation, but it is not able to provide reliable results when between-autocorrelation of the profiles is present since the effect of autocorrelation is not captured by the distribution of the OLS estimators. So, in addition to these inputs ( b A0j,b A1j,brj), further appropriate input features are proposed in the following, which are suitable to account for between-autocorrelation effects of first order (i.e., AR(1) autocorrelation). In particular, the proposed input structure addresses the effect of the mean of responses, the mean of errors, and T 2 statistic each in the current sample (j) and the previous sample (j-1). It should be mentioned that one of the main benefits of machine learning-based algorithms is their independency to the basic assumptions about the process. So, when replacing proper estimations related to other autocorrelation models Define input features Generate training data set based on the input features Select a machine learning technique Generate IC profiles with target as 0 Generate OC profiles with target as 1 Train the machine learning technique Set CV based on the output of machine learning and ARL0 Generate random OC profiles Compute proper inputs based on the generated profiles Import the inputs to the machine learning technique Compute output and compare it with CV to decide on the process Fig. 1 The general step-by-step flowchart of the proposed method Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16325 123 such as MA, ARMA and ARIMA, the proposed method can be easily applied for other process conditions. In machine learning, there are several approaches for normalizing and scaling of the inputs, one of which involves the parameter distribution to be used. For instance, Yeganeh and Shadman [54] scaled the parameters of simple linear profiles, i.e., intercept, slope and standard deviation, with normal and chi square distribution (the relations are not reported for brevity but the interested reader is referred to Eqs. (4) to (9) in Yeganeh and Shadman [54]). Since the autocorrelation was not considered in Yeganeh and Shadman [54] for OLS estimators, we suggest to utilise the between-autocorrelation effect of the first order by means of deviations between current (previous) OLS estimators and their respective IC values, i.e., b A0j A0;b A1jA1;brjr0ðb A0ðj1ÞA0;b A1ðj1ÞA1;brðj1Þ r0Þ. Using this approach, the means of current and previous responses (yj;yj1ðÞ ) are automatically incorporated in the input structure as they are functions of the OLS estimates ^ A0j¼yj^ A1jx;^ A0j1ðÞ ¼ yj1ðÞ ^ A1j1ðÞ xÞ. By considering the above inputs, numerous input combinations can be defined in the proposed method. Having investigated several input features, the following three input combinations I, II and III with 8, 4 and 10 inputs, respectively, are employed for each machine learning technique based on their ability to: (1) adequately address the specific effects of between-autocorrelation of type AR(1), and (2) incorporate the deviations between OLS estimates and their respective IC values for efficient Phase II monitoring: (I) b A0ðj1ÞA0,b A1ðj1ÞA1,brðj1Þr0,b A0jA0, b A1jA1,brjr0,ej,eðj1Þ. (II) brðj1Þr0,brjr0,t 2 (j-1) ,t 2 j . (III) b A0ðj1ÞA0,b A1j1ðÞ A1,brðj1Þr0,b A0jA0, b A1jA1,brjr0,ej,eðj1Þ,t 2 (j-1) ,t 2 j . These input combinations are motivated by their ability to consider effects regarding autocorrelation in various ways. While input combination I addresses the raw AR(1) structure of the underlying model, input combination II aims to isolate the effects of the current and previous T 2 statistics extended by an additional consideration of the current and previous error variances. Finally, input combination III is the union of input combinations I and II, and therefore, combines both main effects. In these three input combinations, the following notations are utilized: •Estimated parameters via OLS in the previous sample (b A0ðj1Þ,b A1ðj1Þ,brðj1Þ). •Estimated parameters via OLS in the current sample (b A0j,b A1j,brj). •Mean of error terms in the previous sample (eðj1Þ). •Mean of error terms in the current sample (ej). •T 2 statistic in the previous sample (t 2 (j-1) ). •T 2 statistic in the current sample (t 2 j ). Note that the T 2 statistic is added as an input feature and no further statistics from other conventional control charts in order to: (1) increase the worse performance of the T 2 control chart, and (2) avoid overparameterization and complexity with regard to further common competitors. 3.2 Generation of the training data set To construct the training data set, the IC and OC profiles are generated by means of simulations. From the simulated profiles, the inputs are constructed based on the predefined three input structures I, II and III in Sect. 3.1. For example, the inputs of the jth generated profile consist of 10 features in input combination III as b A0ðj1ÞA0,b A1j1ðÞ A1, brðj1Þr0,b A0jA0,b A1jA1,brjr0,eðj1Þ, ej;t2 ðj1Þand t2 j:Considering the suggestions by Hosseinifard, Abdollahian and Zeephongsekul [53], equal numbers of IC and OC profiles are generated in a way that the target values of IC and OC profiles are set to 0 and 1, respectively. Hence, we consider the size of the training data set (number of rows) as 6G. First, 3GIC profiles are generated and their input features are recorded with a target value equal to 0. Then, 3GOC profiles (Gprofiles with shift in intercept, Gprofiles with shift in slope, and Gprofiles with shift in standard deviation) are obtained in the same way with a target value equal to 1. Finally, the training data set has 6Grows and 9 (8 ?1), 5 (4 ?1) and 11 (10 ?1) columns for input combinations I, II and III, respectively (note that the last column represents the target values). For better understanding, pseudo code 1 illustrates the process of data set generation for input combination III (an analogous procedure also applies to input combinations I and II). 16326 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 3.3 Training a machine learning technique After obtaining a training data set, a machine learning technique can be trained on its basis. In this paper, six common machine learning techniques, i.e., ANFIS, ANN, RBF, SVR, CNN and LSTM, with the ability of generating continuous outputs are investigated. For better understanding, we provide a brief description about the parameters and adjustments of each method in MATLAB software. Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16327 123 •The ANFIS approach utilizes fuzzy IF–THEN rules to train the parameters with some basic algorithms such as subtractive clustering and grid portioning, in which the idea of rule generation is different. The ‘genfis’ function, which is a well-known single-output Sugeno fuzzy inference system, is used to obtain a grid partition for the training procedure. •The ANN structure, especially a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), with gradient-based optimization is employed here. An important issue in ANNs is related to the adjustment of the number of hidden layers and the neurons. The function ‘feedforwardnet’ utilises a fully connected network architecture using the BP Levenberg–Marquardt training algorithm (‘trainlm’ option). In this study, a single hidden layer with 10 neurons is suggested for training. •RBF considers different training approaches based on the idea of clustering. It has only one hidden layer in a way that the neurons with a distinct spread (radius) are added to its structure until the pre-specified error or maximum number of neurons is obtained. Because the training procedure is completed by the aim of training error reduction, the probability of overfitting would be generally high in this approach. The function ‘newrb’ with spread (radius) 1, error rate 0.05 and maximum neuron size 100 is selected for training purposes. •As additional machine learning techniques, SVM and SVR obtain the parameters based on generating a hyperplane in the problem space in order to minimize the gaps between the predicted and obtained values considering a kernel function for mapping the inputs to the problem space. As we aim to reach a continuous output (regression problem) in this study, the SVR function ‘fitrsvm’ with the gaussian kernel function is used for training (more details about the classification and regression nature of machine learning-based control charts can be found in Yeganeh and Shadman [54]). The parameter epsilon, which determines the distance between the real and the estimated planes in the space, is an important parameter of the SVR technique. As the common range of epsilon is [0.3–0.5] [61], the value 0.3 is selected in this paper. •The deep leaning technique CNN is utilized to investigate its detection ability in the SPM field. Generally, a CNN layer moves some filters along the input vertically and horizontally and computes the dot product of the weights and the input, and then adds a bias term to reach some novel features from the process. CNNs have several parameters such as padding and filter size. As the inputs of this paper are in vector form, the layers are created with ‘convolution1dLayer’ function with filter size 5. •As a further deep learning technique, LSTM is trained to evaluate its performance. Due to the consideration of time dependencies with the aim of time units, LSTM can identify the time series related patterns in an effective way. The most important parameter of LSTM is the number of hidden neurons in each unit that is nearly like the number of hidden layers in common ANNs. Two LSTM layers are defined by the ‘lstmLayer’ function with 40 hidden neurons in a way that the Adam optimizer is utilised to obtain the best weights. 3.4 Decision on the process condition Considering the definition of target values, Hosseinifard et al. [53] set the LCL of their proposed method to 0 and denoted the UCL as Cutting Value (CV). The CV is adjusted by simulations to reach the desired value of ARL 0 . After adjustment of the CV, the output of the considered machine learning technique, e.g., ANN, is compared with the CV to make a decision on the process [43]. If the output of the ANN in the jth sample (O j ) is larger than the CV, this indicates an OC condition (see Fig. 1 in Hosseinifard et al. [53] for more details). By employing this approach in our proposed framework, we can identify the process condition when comparing the output O j of a machine learning technique with the respective CV. For better understanding, pseudo code 2 illustrates the procedure of reaching an OC signal in one iteration of simulations when input combination III is used. To compute the ARL and SDRL by means of Monte Carlo simulations, this procedure is iterated 10,000 times. 16328 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 4 Simulation study To show the effectiveness of our proposed method, a comprehensive simulation study is conducted in this section. To compare the six machine learning techniques ANFIS, ANNBP, CNN, LSTM, RBF and SVR, the CV for each method is set to reach ARL 0 equal to 200, as it is the most common value in profile monitoring. The next aim is to find the best input among the three combinations I, II and III. As such, three input combinations under different parameter settings are used as inputs to the machine learning techniques. Due to the page limit, we only present the results of three input combinations for the shift in intercept in Table 1under /= 0.1 and other results can be given to the interested readers upon request. As can be seen, nearly all machine learning techniques produced the best (i.e., lowest) values in terms of ARL 1 for input combination III. This is due to the fact that input combination III is able to combine both main effects of input combinations I and II, namely: (1) appropriately addressing the raw AR(1) structure of the underlying model, and. (2) the effects of the current and previous T 2 statistics as well as of current and previous error variances. In other words, only considering (2), i.e., using input combination II, is not enough to reach proper results. On the other hand, concentrating on (1), i.e., using input combination I, enables to obtain better performance on average than with (2). The combination of (1) and (2) via input combination III clearly strengthens the effect of (1) and leads to superior results. Similar results are obtained for the rest of parameter settings; thus, we only present the results of input combination III for the rest of the experiments. In addition, due to the first-priority importance of detecting small shifts in the underlying process, the focus is mainly on smaller shifts in the simulation studies. As for larger shifts, there are generally the same patterns as for smaller shifts. For comparisons of single shifts in intercept, slope and standard deviation, the IC model is taken from Noorossana et al. [44] and Wang and Huang [48], where A 0 =3,A 1 =2 and r 2 = 1. In addition, the explanatory variables have the values 2, 4, 6, 8 (n= 4), and 0.1, 0.5, 0.9 are considered as fixed values of /. For comparisons of simultaneous shifts, the IC model is extracted from Wang and Lai [45]. In Sect. 4.1, the performance of various machine learning techniques is compared and the method with the best performance is selected. In Sect. 4.2, the selected machine learning technique and conventional statistical control charts in Phase II profile monitoring are compared. Finally, Sect. 4.3 reports the performance of the best approach for simultaneous shifts in profile parameters. 4.1 Comparing different machine learning techniques based on input combination III In this subsection, three individual shifts are considered for each parameter to compare the performance of each technique in a way that the shifted parameters are A 0 ?kr, A 1 ?gr and cr. The values of ARL 1 associated with different machine learning techniques are given in Table 2. To have a fair comparison, the values of the SDRL 1 are additionally provided in Table 3for each of the considered shifts. The bold values represent the approach with the best performance. Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16329 123 competitors entailing T 2 , EWMA/R and EWMA-3 are selected following Noorossana et al. [44]. Table 7shows the results of ARL 1 for ANFIS and the competitors. Note that the setups are the same as in the previous subsection, and the results of ANFIS and RBF are extracted from Table 2. As can be seen, ANFIS performs considerably better than the other methods for shifts regarding intercept and slope. There is a large difference especially for smaller shifts; for example, ARL 1 is 3.096 for ANFIS given k= 0.4, while ARL 1 is 99.7, 21.9 and 19.7 for the conventional competitors T 2 , EWMA/R and EWMA-3, respectively. However, EWMA-3 and RBF obtain the best results for shifts in the standard deviation. In addition, the statistical methods outperform ANFIS regarding shifts in the standard deviation. 4.3 Comparing the best machine learning technique with conventional statistical approaches considering simultaneous shifts In industrial processes, simultaneous shifts may occur, so a control chart should also be able to detect such type of shifts. Wang and Lai [45] conducted several simulations about simultaneous shifts with the IC model proposed by Noorossana, Amiri and Soleimani [44]. In the following, we compare ANFIS with two reported schemes in Wang and Lai [45], i.e., T 2 and MEWMA. MEWMA is an advanced version of EWMA control charts that integrates the effect of previous samples in one statistic, and some researchers reported that the performance of this approach in profile monitoring is very well [17,21,59]. Table 8 shows the results in terms of ARL 1 for simultaneous shifts in intercept and slope. Note that we restrict the comparison to location parameters and do not consider further simultaneous shifts, which include shifts in the standard deviation, due to the superior performance of ANFIS regarding shifts in intercept and slope. This is also in line with the approach proposed in Wang and Lai [45]. According to Table 8, ANFIS outperforms both other methods. The deviations in terms of ARL 1 are tangible; for example, the values of ARL 1 are 135.73, 180.42 and 196.15 (1.91, 34.22 and 49.64) for ANFIS, MEWMA and T 2 , respectively, for the smallest (largest) shift k= 0.2 and g= 0.025 (k= 1 and g= 0.125). While there is no distinct trend for the absolute deviations between the values of ARL 1 of ANFIS and each of both competitors for increasing shift sizes, there is generally an increasing behaviour for the corresponding relative deviations, i.e., ARLMEWMA 1ARLANFIS 1 ARLANFIS 1 and ARLT2 1ARLANFIS 1 ARLANFIS 1 regarding small shifts (see Table 8). That is, the larger the shifts in slope and/or in intercept, the larger the relative deviations. As for larger shifts in slope and/or intercept (k[1 and g[0.125, not tabulated due to lower relevance), the values of ARL 1 regarding ANFIS decrease to a small extent, while the values of ARL 1 regarding MEWMA and T 2 become closer to the respective ARL 1 values of ANFIS, i.e., we observe a decreasing behavior for the corresponding relative deviations regarding larger shifts. To sum up, ANFIS clearly outperforms both methods in detecting simultaneous shifts and its detection ability is especially better for lower shift sizes. Statistical control charts usually require the fulfilment of some principal assumptions to reach the best performance, while the occurrence of complicated patterns in the manufacturing process may lead to the invalidity of some of the presumed assumptions and thus to deteriorations in their performance. In contrast, machine learning techniques encounter less challenges provided that input combinations and training procedure are defined properly. It could be concluded from the above results that the machine learning-based techniques, and especially ANFIS, perform better than conventional statistical methods when monitoring autocorrelated profiles; however, some computational effort may be required when implementing these approaches. Due to the existence of online data collection systems in real applications, big data storage and development of high technology computers, this challenge is becoming easier in a way that machine learning-based systems can automatically analyze process data to identify OC situations. To this end, the definition of proper input features, dataset development, relevant training adjustment and acceptable false alarm rates are essential tasks. These steps are usually performed as off-line modelling phase while the operation (online) phase refers to the implementation of the trained model on the online data to detect the process Table 9 The IC (black) and OC (red) generated responses in the illustrative example jy ij 172.253 73.264 72.967 75.188 272.345 73.845 73.610 74.569 372.333 73.363 72.709 74.548 472.193 73.147 73.649 73.942 573.157 74.618 73.373 74.962 673.239 74.219 73.498 75.270 772.352 74.249 73.949 74.897 16336 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 condition [57,60]. By this procedure, the proposed machine learning-based approach in this paper can improve the monitoring of industrial processes in terms of OC detection ability. 5 Illustrative example In this section, an illustrative example of a chemical process is conducted to demonstrate a real application. In fact, this example could be considered as a calibration system in the chemical industry. Sometimes, it is necessary to control a chemical process far from the laboratory with remote schemes in which some gas sensors are used as the controller. These sensors are used to monitor such a chemical process over time. Although it is a beneficial approach, it needs new calibration by changing the sensors’ adjustments as the variability of gas sensors may affect the performance of the underlying calibration model [67]. These changes may be caused by different chemical materials, process conditions, and equipment movements so their calibration should be checked over time. The approach of profile monitoring can be applied to address calibration issues and for online monitoring of the process. For these reasons, some studies such as Mahmood et al. [68] and Nadi et al. [36] suggested to apply profile monitoring. Metal oxide (MOX) as a conductometric type of gas sensors is one of the best options due to its sensitivity, operational ease, cost efficiency, rapid response, and the capability of spotting a high number of volatiles. The authors supposed MOX as a sensor and monitored a functional relationship between the resistance (R) of the sensor (i.e., MOX) as the dependent variable and the concentrations of carbon monoxide in the sensor as the independent variable. To monitor this functional formula, they recorded the results of sensor resistance and different concentration levels over time. Based on the recorded data, the explanatory variables are fixed at 25, 100, 125, and 150 ppm. To reach a better performance, it is suggested to change the process situation with some additives. These substances are blended to a special process to accelerate the processing ability of the polymers, improve the characteristics such as durability, stiffness, and enhance the service life. A wide range of additives such as gas, feed, anti-wear, food, fuel, antioxidant, plastic additives have been extended yet. Indeed, gas additives are usually added to the gas sensor processes to adjust the flow of gas during the experiment [67]. However, previous works showed that the relation between resistance and carbon concentration might change in the case of additive materials. To address these issues, Nadi et al. [36] investigated situations related to the before and after of adding the additive material in a way that one additive material was added to the process after time 3278; so, the IC model was extracted from the first 3278 profiles. Considering these profiles, Nadi et al. [36] considered a simple linear IC model with the autocorrelation effect as follows: Yij ¼71:741 þ0:0176Xiþeij; eij ¼0:565eij1ðÞ þaij;aij N0;0:142ðÞ; i¼1;2;3;4;j¼1;2;... ð13Þ To show the applicability of the proposed method in monitoring the above IC model, Nadi et al. [36] utilized simulations for OC data generation (instead of using the data after the 3278th profile). Following them, we first generated five IC profiles and then continued with the OC profile generation considering a shift in the intercept until reaching an OC signal. The magnitude of the OC shift was considered as 0.15 (or 0.5r). Table 9shows the response variables of the generated profiles (the black and red values are IC and OC profiles, respectively). To specify the detection ability of ANFIS for this data set, it is trained based on the IC model in Eq. (13) and input combination III. Considering ARL 0 = 200, the CV is set to 0.615. After adjustment of the CV, the generated data in Table 9is imported to ANFIS and the output of each input is computed. Table 10 reports the input and output values Table 10 Input and output values for the first seven generated profiles applying ANFIS with input combination III (/= 0.565) jInputs Oj 10 0 0 0 -0.2 0.001 0.433 4.406 0 -0.08 0.477 2-0.2 0.0012 0.4332 4.406 0.219 -0.001 -0.26 0.963 -0.08 0.14 0.358 30.22 -0.0013 -0.2557 0.963 0.124 -0.004 0.213 3.209 0.14 -0.31 0.230 40.12 -0.004 0.213 3.209 0.076 -0.003 -0.37 1.404 -0.31 -0.12 0.318 50.08 -0.003 -0.3709 1.404 1.194 -0.007 0.304 9.352 -0.12 0.68 -0.357 61.19 -0.007 0.3045 9.352 1.08 -0.005 0.196 1.575 0.68 0.26 0.157 71.08 -0.005 0.196 1.575 0.21 0.002 -0.22 0.971 0.26 0.05 0.849 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16337 123 for the first seven generated profiles. Hence, ANFIS only needs two OC samples to trigger a signal. The signal in the 7th sample appears because the final statistic exceeds the CV (red horizontal line in Fig. 2), so ANFIS can trigger an OC signal (O 7 = 0.849 [0.615 = CV). 6 Conclusions In profile monitoring, the error term often does not follow a simple structure and is affected by autocorrelations. For this reason, a novel monitoring scheme for linear autocorrelated profiles with between-autocorrelation of first order in Phase II of process monitoring has been proposed in this paper. Unlike most of the existing methods that use common statistical control charts, this paper employed various machine learning techniques, such as ANFIS, ANNBP, CNN, LSTM, RBF and SVR as a control chart. To this aim, four main steps were defined. In the first step, the structure of the input features and outputs of a machine learning technique were determined, and then, a training data set based on the input features and outputs was generated by simulating IC and OC profiles in the second step. The third step utilized the generated data set to train a machine learning technique, and finally, by the definition of a control limit, the machine learning technique provided information about the process condition in the fourth step. The study conducted pursued three main objectives. Due to the high importance of input features in machine learning, some input features, which are appropriate to account for between-autocorrelation effects of first order, were defined and compared to achieve the most appropriate input combination. The results indicated that input combination III, which is defined as the union of input combinations I and II and combines both main effects of these input combinations, is the most appropriate one. For the second aim, different machine learning techniques were compared to identify the most adequate one. Experimental studies showed that ANNBP, CNN, LSTM and SVR were mostly not able to reach a satisfactory detection ability in comparison with ANFIS and RBF. Among ANFIS and RBF, ANFIS was preferable with respect to shifts in intercept and slope, while RBF had the best performance regarding shifts in the standard deviation. This superiority was obvious for low and moderate autocorrelation coefficients (i.e., /= 0.1 and 0.5), while it was not possible to identify a consistently best method for a larger value (/ = 0.9). To address this issue, we additionally implemented an overall performance measure, called RMI. Following RMI, we found that ANFIS turns out to be the method with the best overall average performance for /= 0.9. The third aim of this study was to compare machine learning-based techniques with statistical control charts. This comparison led to the result that the detection ability of ANFIS outperformed all the competitors regarding shifts in intercept and slope. However, the detection ability of ANFIS regarding shifts in the standard deviation was inferior compared to the selected statistical control charts. In this regard, the EWMA-3 control chart performed better, and the best machine learning technique for this purpose was RBF (with a performance that is hardly worse than that of EWMA-3). Hence, machine learning-based control charts, and ANFIS in the first place, are suggested to be utilized in profiles that are characterized by between-sample AR(1) autocorrelation to considerably improve the detection ability of the control chart. Employing the proposed novel input features with other machine learning techniques and other profile types such as nonlinear or Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) in the presence of autocorrelations could be a promising avenue for potential future research. Also, implementing the proposed method in profiles that are characterized by within 0.477 0.358 0.230 0.318 -0.357 0.157 0.849 -0.500 -0.300 -0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900 1234567 Oj Sample Number Fig. 2 The final chart statistics of the first seven random generated profiles in the illustrative example (/= 0.565) 16338 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123 sample autocorrelation or in profiles with other autocorrelation patterns, such as ARMA or VARMA are further suggestions for potential future directions. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions, which were important and helpful to significantly improve the paper. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data availability statement Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Declarations Conflicts of interest (i) this manuscript is the authors’ original work, which has not been published nor submitted simultaneously elsewhere; (ii) all authors have checked the manuscript and agreed to the submission, and (iii) there is no conflict of interest. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/. References 1. Montgomery DC (2019) Introduction to statistical quality control, 8th edn. Wiley, New York 2. Weese M, Martinez W, Megahed FM, Jones-Farmer LA (2016) Statistical learning methods applied to process monitoring: an overview and perspective. J Qual Technol 48:4–24 3. Tran PH, Ahmadi Nadi A, Nguyen TH, Tran KD, Tran KP (2022) Application of machine learning in statistical process control charts: a survey and perspective. In: Tran KP (ed) Control charts and machine learning for anomaly detection in manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–42 4. Fathizadan S, Niaki STA, Noorossana R (2017) Using independent component analysis to monitor 2-D geometric specifications. Qual Reliab Eng Int 33:2075–2087 5. Abbas T, Rafique F, Mahmood T, Riaz M (2019) Efficient phase II monitoring methods for linear profiles under the random effect model. IEEE Access 7:148278–148296 6. Yeganeh A, Pourpanah F, Shadman A (2021) An ANN-based ensemble model for change point estimation in control charts. Appl Soft Comput 110:107604 7. Johannssen A, Chukhrova N, Castagliola P (2021) The performance of the hypergeometric np chart with estimated parameter. Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.056 8. Ji C, Sun W (2022) A review on data-driven process monitoring methods: characterization and mining of industrial data. Processes. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10020335 9. Vanli OA, Castillo ED (2019) Statistical process control in manufacturing. In: Baillieul J, Samad T (eds) Encyclopedia of systems and control. Springer, London, pp 1–8 10. Knoth S (2021) Steady-state average run length(s): methodology, formulas, and numerics. Seq Anal. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07474946.2021.1940501 11. Chukhrova N, Johannssen A (2019) Hypergeometric p-chart with dynamic probability control limits for monitoring processes with variable sample and population sizes. Comput Ind Eng 136:681–701 12. Chukhrova N, Johannssen A (2019) Improved control charts for fraction non-conforming based on hypergeometric distribution. Comput Ind Eng 128:795–806 13. Yeganeh A, Chukhrova N, Johannssen A, Fotuhi H (2023) A network surveillance approach using machine learning based control charts. Expert Syst Appl 219:119660 14. Kang L, Albin SL (2000) On-line monitoring when the process yields a linear profile. J Qual Technol 32:418–426 15. Jones CL, Abdel-Salam A-SG, Mays DA (2021) Practitioners guide on parametric, nonparametric, and semiparametric profile monitoring. Qual Reliab Eng Int 37:857–881 16. Zhao C, Du S, Deng Y, Li G, Huang D (2020) Circular and cylindrical profile monitoring considering spatial correlations. J Manuf Syst 54:35–49 17. Yeganeh A, Shadman A, Amiri A (2021) A novel run rules based MEWMA scheme for monitoring general linear profiles. Comput Ind Eng 152:107031 18. Yeganeh A, Shadman AR, Triantafyllou IS, Shongwe SC, Abbasi SA (2021) Run rules-based EWMA charts for efficient monitoring of profile parameters. IEEE Access 9:38503–38521 19. Zhu J, Lin DKJ (2009) Monitoring the slopes of linear profiles. Qual Eng 22:1–12 20. Kim K, Mahmoud MA, Woodall WH (2003) On the monitoring of linear profiles. J Qual Technol 35:317–328 21. Zou C, Tsung F, Wang Z (2007) Monitoring general linear profiles using multivariate exponentially weighted moving average schemes. Technometrics 49:395–408 22. Yeganeh A, Shadman A, Abbasi SA (2022) Enhancing the detection ability of control charts in profile monitoring by adding RBF ensemble model. Neural Comput Appl 34:9733–9757 23. Ding D, Tsung F, Li J (2017) Ordinal profile monitoring with random explanatory variables. Int J Prod Res 55:736–749 24. Yeganeh A, Abbasi SA, Shongwe SC (2021) A novel simulationbased adaptive MEWMA approach for monitoring linear and logistic profiles. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS. 2021.3107482 25. Mohammadzadeh M, Yeganeh A, Shadman A (2021) Monitoring logistic profiles using variable sample interval approach. Comput Ind Eng 158:107438 26. Chou S-H, Chang SI, Tsai T-R (2014) On monitoring of multiple non-linear profiles. Int J Prod Res 52:3209–3224 27. Zou C, Tsung F, Wang Z (2008) Monitoring profiles based on nonparametric regression methods. Technometrics 50:512–526 28. Zeng L, Neogi S, Zhou Q (2014) Robust phase I monitoring of profile data with application in low-E glass manufacturing processes. J Manuf Syst 33:508–521 29. Zhou P, Liu P, Wang S, Zhang C, Zhang J, Li S (2022) Functional state-space model for multi-channel autoregressive profiles with application in advanced manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 64:356–371 30. Yao C, Li Z, He C, Zhang J (2020) A Phase II control chart based on the weighted likelihood ratio test for monitoring polynomial profiles. J Stat Comput Simul 90:676–698 31. Zhang Y, He Z, Zhang M, Wang Q (2016) A score-test-based EWMA control chart for detecting prespecified quadratic changes in linear profiles. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32:921–931 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 16339 123 32. Maleki MR, Amiri A, Castagliola P (2018) An overview on recent profile monitoring papers (2008–2018) based on conceptual classification scheme. Comput Ind Eng 126:705–728 33. Woodall WH (2007) Current research on profile monitoring. Production 17:420–425 34. Fan S-KS, Jen C-H, Lee J-X (2019) Profile monitoring for autocorrelated reflow processes with small samples. Processes. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7020104 35. Khalili S, Noorossana R (2022) Online monitoring of autocorrelated multivariate linear profiles via multivariate mixed models. Qual Technol Quant Managl 19:319–340 36. Nadi AA, Yeganeh A, Shadman A (2023) Monitoring simple linear profiles in the presence of withinand between-profile autocorrelation. Qual Reliab Eng Int. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre. 3254 37. Yao J, Xian X, Wang C (2023) Adaptive sampling for monitoring multi-profile data with within-and-between profile correlation. Technometrics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2023.2166125 38. Soleimani P, Noorossana R, Amiri A (2009) Simple linear profiles monitoring in the presence of within profile autocorrelation. Comput Ind Eng 57:1015–1021 39. Cheng T-C, Yang S-F (2018) Monitoring profile based on a linear regression model with correlated errors. Qual Technol Quant Manag 15:393–412 40. Rahimi SB, Amiri A, Ghashghaei R (2021) Simultaneous monitoring of mean vector and covariance matrix of multivariate simple linear profiles in the presence of within profile autocorrelation. Commun Stat Simul Comput 50:1791–1808 41. Jensen WA, Birch JB, Woodall WH (2008) Monitoring correlation within linear profiles using mixed models. J Qual Technol 40:167–183 42. Jensen WA, Birch JB (2009) Profile monitoring via nonlinear mixed models. J Qual Technol 41:18–34 43. Narvand A, Soleimani P, Raissi S (2013) Phase II monitoring of auto-correlated linear profiles using linear mixed model. J Ind Eng Int 9:12 44. Noorossana R, Amiri A, Soleimani P (2008) On the monitoring of autocorrelated linear profiles. Commun Stat Theory Methods 37:425–442 45. Wang Y-HT, Lai Y (2019) Monitoring of autocorrelated general linear profiles. J Stat Comput Simul 89:519–535 46. Khedmati M, Niaki STA (2016) Phase II monitoring of general linear profiles in the presence of between-profile autocorrelation. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32:443–452 47. Koosha M, Amiri A (2013) Generalized linear mixed model for monitoring autocorrelated logistic regression profiles. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 64:487–495 48. Wang Y-HT, Huang W-H (2017) Phase II monitoring and diagnosis of autocorrelated simple linear profiles. Comput Ind Eng 112:57–70 49. Pacella M, Semeraro Q (2011) Monitoring roundness profiles based on an unsupervised neural network algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 60:677–689 50. Li C-I, Pan J-N, Liao C-H (2019) Monitoring nonlinear profile data using support vector regression method. Qual Reliab Eng Int 35:127–135 51. Sergin ND, Yan H (2021) Toward a better monitoring statistic for profile monitoring via variational autoencoders. J Qual Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.2021.1903821 52. Yeganeh A, Abbasi SA, Pourpanah F, Shadman A, Johannssen A, Chukhrova N (2022) An ensemble neural network framework for improving the detection ability of a base control chart in nonparametric profile monitoring. Expert Syst Appl 204:117572 53. Hosseinifard SZ, Abdollahian M, Zeephongsekul P (2011) Application of artificial neural networks in linear profile monitoring. Expert Syst Appl 38:4920–4928 54. Yeganeh A, Shadman A (2021) Monitoring linear profiles using Artificial Neural Networks with run rules. Expert Syst Appl 168:114237 55. Noorossana R, Niaki STA, Izadbakhsh H (2015) Statistical monitoring of nominal logistic profiles in phase II. Commun Stat Theory Methods 44:2689–2704 56. Yeganeh A, Shadman A (2021) Using evolutionary artificial neural networks in monitoring binary and polytomous logistic profiles. J Manuf Syst 61:546–561 57. Chen S, Yu J, Wang S (2020) Monitoring of complex profiles based on deep stacked denoising autoencoders. Comput Ind Eng 143:106402 58. Riaz M, Mahmood T, Abbasi SA, Abbas N, Ahmad S (2017) Linear profile monitoring using EWMA structure under ranked set schemes. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 91:2751–2775 59. Huwang L, Wang Y-HT, Xue S, Zou C (2014) Monitoring general linear profiles using simultaneous confidence sets schemes. Comput Ind Eng 68:1–12 60. Yu J, Zheng X, Wang S (2019) A deep autoencoder feature learning method for process pattern recognition. J Process Control 79:1–15 61. Cherkassky V, Ma Y (2004) Practical selection of SVM parameters and noise estimation for SVM regression. Neural Netw 17:113–126 62. Das HS, Roy P (2019) Chapter 5—a deep dive into deep learning techniques for solving spoken language identification problems. In: Dey N (ed) Intelligent speech signal processing. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 81–100 63. Borg A, Boldt M, Rosander O, Ahlstrand J (2021) E-mail classification with machine learning and word embeddings for improved customer support. Neural Comput Appl 33:1881–1902 64. Han D, Tsung F (2006) A reference-free cuscore chart for dynamic mean change detection and a unified framework for charting performance comparison. J Am Stat Assoc 101:368–386 65. Perry MB (2020) An EWMA control chart for categorical processes with applications to social network monitoring. J Qual Technol 52:182–197 66. Aziz Kalteh A, Babouei S (2020) Control chart patterns recognition using ANFIS with new training algorithm and intelligent utilization of shape and statistical features. ISA Trans 102:12–22 67. Fonollosa J, Ferna ´ndez L, Gutie ´rrez-Ga ´lvez A, Huerta R, Marco S (2016) Calibration transfer and drift counteraction in chemical sensor arrays using Direct Standardization. Sens Actuators B Chem 236:1044–1053 68. Mahmood T, Riaz M, Hafidz Omar M, Xie M (2018) Alternative methods for the simultaneous monitoring of simple linear profile parameters. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 97:2851–2871 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 16340 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:16321–16340 123