Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Interactive and Intelligent Root Cause Analysis in Manufacturing with Causal Bayesian Networks and Knowledge Graphs (2402.00043v1)

Published 20 Jan 2024 in cs.AI, cs.CE, and cs.LG

Abstract: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) in the manufacturing of electric vehicles is the process of identifying fault causes. Traditionally, the RCA is conducted manually, relying on process expert knowledge. Meanwhile, sensor networks collect significant amounts of data in the manufacturing process. Using this data for RCA makes it more efficient. However, purely data-driven methods like Causal Bayesian Networks have problems scaling to large-scale, real-world manufacturing processes due to the vast amount of potential cause-effect relationships (CERs). Furthermore, purely data-driven methods have the potential to leave out already known CERs or to learn spurious CERs. The paper contributes by proposing an interactive and intelligent RCA tool that combines expert knowledge of an electric vehicle manufacturing process and a data-driven machine learning method. It uses reasoning over a large-scale Knowledge Graph of the manufacturing process while learning a Causal Bayesian Network. In addition, an Interactive User Interface enables a process expert to give feedback to the root cause graph by adding and removing information to the Knowledge Graph. The interactive and intelligent RCA tool reduces the learning time of the Causal Bayesian Network while decreasing the number of spurious CERs. Thus, the interactive and intelligent RCA tool closes the feedback loop between expert and machine learning method.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (26)
  1. C. Wehner, F. Powlesland, B. Altakrouri, and U. Schmid, “Explainable online lane change predictions on a digital twin with a layer normalized lstm and layer-wise relevance propagation,” in Advances and Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Theory and Practices in Artificial Intelligence, H. Fujita, P. Fournier-Viger, M. Ali, and Y. Wang, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 621–632.
  2. E. e Oliveira, V. L. Miguéis, and J. L. Borges, “Automatic root cause analysis in manufacturing: an overview and conceptualization,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01914-3
  3. K. M. Tay and C. P. Lim, “On the use of fuzzy inference techniques in assessment models: part ii: industrial applications,” Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, vol. 7, pp. 283–302, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-008-9037-y
  4. E. Ruijters and M. Stoelinga, “Fault tree analysis: A survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools,” Computer Science Review, vol. 15-16, pp. 29–62, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574013715000027
  5. S. Pradhan, R. Singh, K. Kachru, and S. Narasimhamurthy, “A bayesian network based approach for root-cause-analysis in manufacturing process,” in 2007 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security (CIS 2007), 2007, pp. 10–14.
  6. M. Kirchhof, K. Haas, T. Kornas, S. Thiede, M. Hirz, and C. Hermann, “Root cause analysis in lithium-ion battery production with fmea-based large-scale bayesian network,” 06 2020.
  7. M. Kertel, S. Harmeling, and M. Pauly, “Learning causal graphs in manufacturing domains using structural equation models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14573
  8. ISO/IEC, “Risk management — Risk assessment techniques,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, Standard, Jun. 2019.
  9. Q. Ma, H. Li, and A. Thorstenson, “A big data-driven root cause analysis system: Application of machine learning in quality problem solving,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 160, p. 107580, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835221004848
  10. A. Alaeddini and I. Dogan, “Using bayesian networks for root cause analysis in statistical process control,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 11 230–11 243, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417411003952
  11. A. Lokrantz, E. Gustavsson, and M. Jirstrand, “Root cause analysis of failures and quality deviations in manufacturing using machine learning,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 72, pp. 1057–1062, 2018, 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827118303895
  12. K. Marazopoulou, R. Ghosh, P. Lade, and D. Jensen, “Causal discovery for manufacturing domains,” 05 2016.
  13. J. Li and J. Shi, “Knowledge discovery from observational data for process control using causal bayesian networks,” IIE Transactions, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 681–690, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170600899532
  14. L. Abele, M. Anic, T. Gutmann, J. Folmer, M. Kleinsteuber, and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Combining knowledge modeling and machine learning for alarm root cause analysis,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1843–1848, 2013, 7th IFAC Conference on Manufacturing Modelling, Management, and Control. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667016345633
  15. G. Weidl, A. Madsen, and S. Israelson, “Applications of object-oriented bayesian networks for condition monitoring, root cause analysis and decision support on operation of complex continuous processes,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1996–2009, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009813540500133X
  16. D. Zhang, L. Wang, Q. Hong, and K. Zhang, “Research on fault diagnosis of steam turbine based on bayesian network,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1754, p. 012136, 02 2021.
  17. X. Zheng, C. Dan, B. Aragam, P. Ravikumar, and E. Xing, “Learning sparse nonparametric dags,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.   PMLR, 2020, pp. 3414–3425.
  18. P. Bühlmann, J. Peters, and J. Ernest, “CAM: Causal additive models, high-dimensional order search and penalized regression,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2526 – 2556, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1214/14-AOS1260
  19. G. Menegozzo, D. Dall’Alba, and P. Fiorini, “Cipcad-bench: Continuous industrial process datasets for benchmarking causal discovery methods,” in 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 2124–2131.
  20. A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. D’amato, G. Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. L. Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neumaier, A.-C. N. Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, and A. Zimmermann, “Knowledge graphs,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, pp. 1–37, 2021.
  21. J. Gallian, “A dynamic survey of graph labeling,” Electron. J. Combin., Dynamic Surveys, vol. 19, 11 2000.
  22. A. Wille, P. Zimmermann, E. Vranová, A. Fürholz, O. Laule, S. Bleuler, L. Hennig, A. Prelić, P. von Rohr, L. Thiele et al., “Sparse graphical gaussian modeling of the isoprenoid gene network in arabidopsis thaliana,” Genome biology, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1–13, 2004.
  23. G. N. Saxe, S. Ma, L. J. Morales, I. R. Galatzer-Levy, C. Aliferis, and C. R. Marmar, “Computational causal discovery for post-traumatic stress in police officers,” Translational psychiatry, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2020.
  24. S. Shimizu, T. Inazumi, Y. Sogawa, A. Hyvärinen, Y. Kawahara, T. Washio, P. O. Hoyer, and K. Bollen, “Directlingam: A direct method for learning a linear non-gaussian structural equation model,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, no. 0, p. 1225–1248, jul 2011.
  25. Y. Yu, J. Chen, T. Gao, and M. Yu, “DAG-GNN: DAG structure learning with graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, K. Chaudhuri and R. Salakhutdinov, Eds., vol. 97.   PMLR, 09–15 Jun 2019, pp. 7154–7163. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/yu19a.html
  26. A. Shojaie and G. Michailidis, “Penalized likelihood methods for estimation of sparse high-dimensional directed acyclic graphs,” Biometrika, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 519–538, 07 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asq038
Citations (5)

Summary

  • The paper presents an innovative method that integrates expert insights with machine learning via Causal Bayesian Networks and interactive Knowledge Graphs.
  • It improves fault detection in electric vehicle manufacturing by reducing computational loads and preventing spurious cause-effect relationships.
  • An interactive user interface enables experts to refine the analysis in real time, resulting in more accurate and interpretable root cause identification.

Interactive and Intelligent Root Cause Analysis in Manufacturing with Causal Bayesian Networks and Knowledge Graphs

This paper addresses the critical issue of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) within the context of electric vehicle manufacturing, where identifying the cause of faults is imperative for maintaining production efficiency and quality. Traditionally, RCA relies heavily on manual processes and expert insights. However, the advent of sensor networks has introduced vast amounts of data, which, when utilized effectively, can enhance the RCA process significantly. The paper proposes an innovative tool that amalgamates expert knowledge with data-driven approaches, using Causal Bayesian Networks (CBNs) alongside Knowledge Graphs (KGs).

The challenge in implementing purely data-driven approaches such as CBNs in manufacturing lies in their scalability and susceptibility to both omitting known cause-effect relationships (CERs) and learning spurious ones due to the complexity and volume of the sensor data. The authors address this by incorporating an interactive RCA tool that synergizes expert knowledge with machine learning techniques.

A core component of their proposed solution involves reasoning over an extensive Knowledge Graph that encapsulates the manufacturing process, which is augmented by a Causal Bayesian Network. Significantly, the proposed methodology includes an Interactive User Interface that allows process experts to refine the RCA by adding or removing information from the Knowledge Graph. This interactive feedback loop is designed to accelerate the learning process and reduce the prevalence of spurious CERs.

Key contributions of this research include the development of a method that effectively integrates human expertise with machine learning, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of RCA in a large-scale manufacturing environment. This blend reduces the dependency on extensive data-driven computations, thereby shortening the computational time and focusing the learning process.

The implications of this research are substantial for the manufacturing industry, particularly in enhancing fault detection and resolution processes in electric vehicle production. By creating a dynamic interface between human expertise and machine intelligence, the methodology fosters an adaptive learning environment that is not only more accurate but also interpretable by human operators.

Looking ahead, the integration of this approach could extend beyond the electric vehicle sector to other domains where complex manufacturing processes are prevalent. Additionally, further research might explore enhancing the scalability of the knowledge graph methodologies or integrating more sophisticated feedback mechanisms to further synergize human and machine intelligence.

Overall, this paper provides a nuanced approach to RCA by combining traditional expert insight with cutting-edge data-driven methods, illustrating a substantial progression in manufacturing process intelligence and interactivity.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com