Impact of Interdependencies: Multi-Component System Perspective toward Predictive Maintenance Based on Machine Learning and XAI
Source abstract
Abstract
Taking the multi-component perspective in Predictive Maintenance (PdM) is one promising approach to improve prediction quality. Therefore, detection and modeling of interdependencies within systems are important, especially as systems become more complex and personalized. However, existing solutions in PdM mostly focus on a single-component perspective, neglecting the dependencies between components, even if interdependencies can be found between most components in the real world. The major reason for this lost opportunity is the challenge of identifying and modeling interdependencies between components. This paper introduces a framework to identify interdependencies and explain their impact on PdM within a Multi-Component System (MCS). The contribution of this approach is two-fold. First, it shows the impact of modeling interdependencies in predictive analytics. Second, it helps to understand which components interact with each other and to which degree they affect the deterioration state of corresponding components. As a result, our approach can identify and explain the existence of interdependencies within components. In particular, we demonstrate that time from last change of component is a valuable feature to quantify interdependencies. Moreover, we show that taking into account the interdependencies provides a statistically significant improvement of f1-score by 7% on average compared to the model where interdependencies are neglected. We expect that our findings will improve maintenance scheduling in the industry while improving prediction models in general.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Reliability and Maintenance Optimization · Software Reliability and Analysis Research · Risk and Safety Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Pro2future GmbH Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
Business Analytics and Data Science Center, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
Funding
FFG · Austrian COMET Program Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies · Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology · Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and of the Provinces of Upper Austria and Styria · Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Thalmann, S., Fessl, A., and Pammer-Schindler, V. (2020, January 7–10). How large manufacturing firms understand the impact of digitization: A Learning Perspective. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.10.24251/HICSS.2020.590 ↗
2. Wear rate-state interaction modelling for a multi-component system: Models and an experimental platform10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.040 ↗
3. Stochastic framework for partially degradation systems with continuous component degradation-rate-interactions10.1002/nav.21583 ↗
4. Gashi, M., and Thalmann, S. (2019, January 9–10). Taking Complexity into Account: A Structured Literature Review on Multi-component Systems in the Context of Predictive Maintenance. Proceedings of the Information Systems-16th European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern Conference, EMCIS 2019, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
5. A dynamic predictive maintenance policy for complex multi-component systems10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.029 ↗
6. An investigation of knowledge protection practices in inter-organisational collaboration: Protecting specialised engineering knowledge with a practice based on grey-box modelling
7. Thalmann, S., Gursch, H.G., Suschnigg, J., Gashi, M., Ennsbrunner, H., Fuchs, A.K., Schreck, T., Mutlu, B., Mangler, J., and Kappl, G. (2019, January 5–9). Cognitive decision support for industrial product life cycles: A position paper. Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Advanced Cognitive Technologies and Applications, Venice, Italy.
8. Dealing with missing usage data in defect prediction: A case study of a welding supplier10.1016/j.compind.2021.103505 ↗
9. Gashi, M., Mutlu, B., Lindstaedt, S., and Thalmann, S. (2022, January 4–7). Decision support for multi-component systems: Visualizing interdependencies for predictive maintenance. Proceedings of the 55rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.10.24251/HICSS.2022.211 ↗
10. Cardoso, D., and Ferreira, L. (2021). Application of Predictive Maintenance Concepts Using Artificial Intelligence Tools. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11010018 ↗
11. Data-driven methods for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment: A survey10.1109/JSYST.2019.2905565 ↗
12. Machine learning for predictive maintenance: A multiple classifier approach10.1109/TII.2014.2349359 ↗
13. Predictive maintenance, its implementation and latest trends10.1177/0954405415601640 ↗
14. Data analytics for industrial process improvement a vision paper10.1109/CBI.2018.10051 ↗
15. Pech, M., Vrchota, J., and Bednář, J. (2021). Predictive Maintenance and Intelligent Sensors in Smart Factory. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21041470 ↗
16. Predictive Maintenance for Vibration-Related failures in the Semi-Conductor Industry
17. Machine learning and data mining in manufacturing10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114060 ↗
18. Durbhaka, G.K., and Selvaraj, B. (2016, January 21–24). Predictive maintenance for wind turbine diagnostics using vibration signal analysis based on collaborative recommendation approach. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), Jaipur, India.10.1109/ICACCI.2016.7732316 ↗
19. Sipos, R., Fradkin, D., Moerchen, F., and Wang, Z. (2014, January 24–27). Log-based predictive maintenance. Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/2623330.2623340 ↗
20. Gashi, M., Gursch, H., Hinterbichler, H., Pichler, S., Lindstaedt, S., and Thalmann, S. (2022). MEDEP: Maintenance Event Detection for Multivariate Time Series Based on the PELT Approach. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22082837 ↗
21. A new dynamic predictive maintenance framework using deep learning for failure prognostics10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.018 ↗
22. A data-driven predictive maintenance strategy based on accurate failure prognostics10.17531/ein.2021.2.19 ↗
23. Mechanical systems hazard estimation using condition monitoring10.1016/j.ymssp.2004.10.009 ↗
24. Multivariate distributions for the life lengths of components of a system sharing a common environment10.2307/3214184 ↗
25. A neural network filtering approach for similarity-based remaining useful life estimation10.1007/s00170-018-2874-0 ↗
26. Reliability analysis and condition-based maintenance of systems with dependent degrading components based on thermodynamic physics-of-failure10.1007/s00170-015-8220-x ↗
27. Multi-level predictive maintenance for multi-component systems10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.017 ↗
28. Nicolai, R.P., and Dekker, R. (2008). Complex System Maintenance Handbook, Springer.
29. A review on condition-based maintenance optimization models for stochastically deteriorating system10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.009 ↗
30. Condition-based maintenance policies for systems with multiple dependent components: A review10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.044 ↗
31. Diagnosis and prognosis for complicated industrial systems—Part I10.1109/TIE.2016.2522944 ↗
32. A survey of visualization for smart manufacturing10.1007/s12650-018-0530-2 ↗
33. A survey on information visualization: Recent advances and challenges10.1007/s00371-013-0892-3 ↗
34. Gashi, M., Mutlu, B., Suschnigg, J., Ofner, P., Pichler, S., and Schreck, T. (2020, January 25–30). Interactive Visual Exploration of defect prediction in industrial setting through explainable models based on SHAP values. Proceedings of the IEEE VIS 2020, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
35. Van Lent, M., Fisher, W., and Mancuso, M. (2004, January 25–29). An explainable artificial intelligence system for small-unit tactical behavior. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA, USA.
36. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 ↗
37. Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., and Elhadad, N. (2015, January 10–13). Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney, Australia.10.1145/2783258.2788613 ↗
38. Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C.S., and Kell, D.B. (2017). What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?. arXiv.
39. Tan, S., Caruana, R., Hooker, G., and Lou, Y. (2017). Detecting bias in black-box models using transparent model distillation. arXiv.
40. An empirical study of model-agnostic techniques for defect prediction models10.1109/TSE.2020.2982385 ↗
41. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017, January 4–9). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
42. Contributions to the Theory of Games
43. Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., and Lee, S.I. (2018). Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles. arXiv.
44. (2021, August 12). Predictive Maintenance Modelling Guide Data Sets. Available online: https://gallery.azure.ai/Experiment/Predictive-Maintenance-Implementation-Guide-Data-Sets-1.
45. Batista, G.E., Bazzan, A.L., and Monard, M.C. (2003, January 3–5). Balancing Training Data for Automated Annotation of Keywords: A Case Study. Proceedings of the WOB, Macaé, RJ, Brazil.
46. SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique10.1613/jair.953 ↗
47. Asymptotic properties of nearest neighbor rules using edited data10.1109/TSMC.1972.4309137 ↗
48. Buitinck, L., Louppe, G., Blondel, M., Pedregosa, F., Mueller, A., Grisel, O., Niculae, V., Prettenhofer, P., Gramfort, A., and Grobler, J. (2013, January 23–27). API design for machine learning software: Experiences from the scikit-learn project. Proceedings of the ECML PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning, Prague, Czech Republic.
49. Keim, D.A., Mansmann, F., Stoffel, A., and Ziegler, H. (2009). Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Springer.
50. Tallarida, R.J., and Murray, R.B. (1987). Manual of Pharmacologic Calculations, Springer.
51. A survey on addressing high-class imbalance in big data10.1186/s40537-018-0151-6 ↗
52. A big data MapReduce framework for fault diagnosis in cloud-based manufacturing10.1080/00207543.2016.1153166 ↗
53. Vukovic, M., and Thalmann, S. (2022). Causal discovery in manufacturing: A structured literature review. J. Manuf. Mater. Process., 6.10.3390/jmmp6010010 ↗