S2S-FDD: Bridging Industrial Time Series and Natural Language for Explainable Zero-shot Fault Diagnosis
Authors: Baoxue Li, Chunhui Zhao
Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, College of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · School of Information and Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China
Fault diagnosis is critical for the safe operation of industrial systems. Conventional diagnosis models typically produce abstract outputs such as anomaly scores or fault categories, failing to answer critical operational questions like "Why" or "How to repair". While large language models (LLMs) offer strong generalization and reasoning abilities, their training on discrete textual corpora creates a semantic gap when processing high-dimensional, temporal industrial signals. To address this challenge, we propose a Signals-to-Semantics fault diagnosis (S2S-FDD) framework that bridges high-dimensional sensor signals with natural language semantics through two key innovations: We first design a Signal-to-Semantic operator to convert abstract time-series signals into natural language summaries, capturing trends, periodicity, and deviations. Based on the descriptions, we design a multi-turn tree-structured diagnosis method to perform fault diagnosis by referencing historical maintenance documents and dynamically querying additional signals. The framework further supports human-in-the-loop feedback for continuous refinement. Experiments on the multiphase flow process show the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method for explainable zero-shot fault diagnosis.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the proposed S2S framework. It contains two key components, including the S2S operator and multi-turn tree-structured diagnosis method. The former converts raw sensor data into concise and domain-aware natural language summaries. Based on the descriptions, the latter retrieves relevant historical maintenance documents and conducts zero-shot fault diagnosis.
Prompt Template for Temporal Description
Your task is to describe the deviation between the measured value and the ideal normal value of a measurement point, focusing on trends, periodic patterns, volatility, and key anomalies. • Industrial process: [PROCESS_INFO] • All measurement points: [ALL_SENSORS] • Target measurement point: [TARGET_SENSOR] • Data table: [TABLE] (measured value, ideal normal value, deviation, and time-varying deviation percentage, along with the average deviation and deviation percentage under normal conditions) Only focus on time intervals where the deviation or deviation percentage significantly exceeds that under normal conditions, as these intervals indicate possible faults. Ignore periods with deviation close to normal. For significantly deviated periods, describe: 1. The trend of the measured value (increasing, decreasing, stable, or cyclically fluctuating) 2. Whether the measured value is above or below the ideal value If no significant deviation is observed, state that the variable has no obvious abnormality. Provide both quantitative indicators (time intervals) and qualitative insights, focusing on observable patterns. Avoid speculating on root causes. Do not use subheadings or Markdown syntax. Keep the response concise—no more than 100 words.
Prompt Template for Fault Diagnosis
You are an expert in fault diagnosis for industrial processes. Your task is to analyze the following information to identify potential faults: • Industrial Process: [PROCESS_INFO] • Measurement Points (List of available sensors): [ALL_SENSORS] • Fault Knowledge (Known faults and their characteristics): [FAULT_KNOWLEDGE] • Time-Series Observations: [TIME_DESP] (Deviation = Measured - Predicted) Follow these steps: 1. Identify Key Sensors: Determine which sensors show significant deviations from expected values. 2. Cross-Reference with Fault Knowledge: Compare the observed patterns with known fault characteristics to hypothesize possible faults. Please note that sometimes different faults may exhibit similar patterns in certain variables. So, do not rely solely on the provided fault knowledge; you should combine fault causes and process workflow to reasonably infer the trends of different variables. 3. Check data sufficiency: • If the time series observations provide enough information to identify the fault, output the fault number in the following format: <reasoning>...</reasoning> and <answer>...</answer> • If the time series observations are insufficient or critical variables are missing, use the ‘get_target_table‘ tool to query detailed data for specific sensors. Ensure the sensor name exists in the Measurement Points before querying. Output the tool call in the following format: <tool>get_target_table("SENSOR")</tool> Important Notes: • Prioritize sensors listed in [ALL_SENSORS] • Only call get_target_table when necessary: – When time series observations are insufficient to determine the fault – When critical variables for fault diagnosis are missing from the observations
TABLE I: Prompt Templates
Fig. 2: Sketch of the multiphase flow process.
Methods
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
Case 9
Case 10
Case 11
Case 12
Case 13
ACC@5
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.08%
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.77%
DeepSeek-V3
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.08%
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
61.54%
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
53.85%
QwQ-32B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
61.54%
TABLE II: Comparison of Different Methods
Results of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
<reasoning> Based on the significant deviations in the sensors and the known fault characteristics, the most likely fault is Fault Type 1 (Air Line Blockage), as the deviations in PT312 and PT401 align with the expected behavior of a blockage in the air line. </reasoning> <answer> 1 </answer>
Results of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
Step-by-Step Analysis: 1. Identify Key Sensors: The significant deviations in air and water flow rates, along with pressure changes, were observed in sensors like PT312, PT401, PT408, FT305, FT104, and FT406. 2. Cross-Reference with Fault Knowledge: The observed trends in decreasing air and water flow rates, along with pressure decreases, matched the expected behavior of a water line blockage (Fault Type 2). 3. Determine Data Sufficiency: The data from key sensors provided enough information to infer the fault, without needing additional data retrieval. Conclusion: The most probable fault is Fault Type 2: water line blockage. <answer> 2 </answer>
Results of Deepseek-R1
<reasoning> 1. Key Sensor Deviations:
- Air Delivery Pressure (PT312): Decreasing trend (158-200), lower than ideal.
TABLE III: Diagnosis results of three LLMs under Case 4
We study industrial fault diagnosis as a classification task that assigns sensor time-series windows to predefined health states or fault types. Scarce labels and changing operating conditions make repeated training of specialized classifiers costly. Yet structures such as periodicity, trends, and transients can remain diagnostically informative and be examined through reusable analytical tools. LLM agents can select and interpret these tools, but fixed rules or training-derived guidance may not resolve each signal's ambiguity, while unconstrained interpretation may overstate weak or conflicting results. We introduce Agentic4PDM, a framework that separates adaptive investigation from control over evidence use. LLM agents compare each signal with labeled references from every candidate class, identify unresolved distinctions, and propose follow-up measurements. A deterministic software controller, called the host, enforces contract-checked gated adjudication (CCGA): it checks requests, requires commitment to a complete tool batch before results are observed, and assigns evidence roles based on tool checks against labeled references. These roles distinguish corroborative support from advisory information. The Judge Agent proposes a diagnosis, while the controller checks protocol compliance and records the investigation. Agentic4PDM supports training-free diagnosis using pretrained representations and labeled references without task-specific diagnostic models, and a standard setting that additionally investigates trained-model predictions. Experiments on selected bearing and motor diagnosis challenges and an unfiltered industrial test set supplied by our customer show gains in aggregate macro F1 over the evaluated diagnostic and agentic baselines. Ablations further support the value of the governed workflow.
Nam V. Nguyen, Hoang Van Truong, Hieu D. D. +3
FPT Corporation · Independent Researcher · Aalborg University
In so-called "Industry 4.0," integrated sensors, analytics tools, and other digital technologies supplement industrial workflows, potentiating enhanced visibility and automation. Prognostics and health management (PHM) and natural language processing (NLP) practitioners alike have explored the application of large language models (LLMs) to industrial asset management, but many prior works' focus on exam-like benchmarks has limited their assessment of LLMs' ability to automate practical operations. Herein, we introduce CoffeeBench, a fault diagnostics task for LLM agents, using a simulated appliance. The LLMs we evaluate struggle to consistently identify faults from the sensor information alone, but the best-performing ones can iteratively refine the fault-option space to eventually obtain a successful diagnosis. Our subsequent analyses, therefore, focus on: differentiating models by diagnostic efficiency (RQ1); examining the lagging performance of the three worst models (RQ2); and identifying viable heuristics for selective prediction (RQ3), including that initial diagnostic uncertainty and LLM-judged soundness of reasoning are high-signal predictors of diagnostic success. In addition to our benchmark results (Section 3.1), we provide practical insights for improving the performance of the open-weight models on CoffeeBench, such as by explicitly tracking episode state on their behalf to reduce timeouts (Section 3.2) or applying a deliberation loop to refine diagnostic hypotheses (Section 3.3).
Diagnosing the root cause of anomalies is essential for safe industrial operation. Despite extensive sensor instrumentation, formulating hypotheses and gathering evidence remains a manual process, creating a major operational bottleneck. While existing data-driven approaches aim to automate this, two critical limitations restrict their deployment: their operate as black boxes unable to justify their diagnosis, and they require scarce labeled examples of faulty operation. To address this gap, we introduce AgentRCA, a zero-shot agentic framework for evidence-grounded root cause analysis. Rather than learning fault-specific mappings, AgentRCA performs inference-time reasoning by combining a data-driven digital twin (modeling normal system dynamics) with a tool-augmented large language model. The agent iteratively gathers statistical evidence, evaluates competing hypotheses, and identifies the physical fault that best explains the observed behavior. Evaluated on a real-world multiphase-flow facility and a large-scale chemical plant, AgentRCA achieves diagnostic performance competitive with fully supervised baselines without relying on fault-specific training. Crucially, it produces transparent reasoning traces that explicitly link observed symptoms to their underlying physical causes. These results establish autonomous hypothesis-driven reasoning as a practical foundation for scalable industrial root cause analysis.