Unsupervised Machine Model Validation Using Artificial Anomalies

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing machine monitoring and maintenance solutions are inadequate in predicting failures accurately, leading to unnecessary downtime, wasted resources, and high costs due to reliance on predetermined rules, periodic testing, and specialized operators, and are not adaptable to various machine types or sensor changes.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for validating unsupervised machine learning models by analyzing sensory inputs to determine normal behavior patterns, generating artificial anomalies, and injecting them into the system to assess candidate models, ensuring they accurately represent machine operation and detect anomalies effectively.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If predetermined rules and periodic testing are used for machine monitoring, then implementation is simple and operators are easier to train, but prediction accuracy is low and failures are detected only after they occur

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefailure prediction accuracyVSAvoidmonitoring system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces traditional mechanical monitoring approaches (predetermined rules, periodic testing by operators) with an unsupervised machine learning system that automatically analyzes sensor data. The system uses algorithms to learn normal machine behavior patterns and detect anomalies without human intervention, substituting automated intelligent analysis for manual monitoring processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The machine learning model performs self-validation by generating artificial anomalies and testing its own detection capabilities. The system automatically evaluates its performance without requiring external testing equipment or specialized operators, enabling self-assessment and continuous improvement of prediction accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If dedicated testing equipment and specialized operators are used, then validation can be performed, but costs increase and human error potential increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel validation reliabilityVSAvoidoperator specialization requirement
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-validation by generating artificial anomalies and testing its own detection capabilities. This eliminates the need for specialized operators and dedicated testing equipment, as the model validates itself automatically using synthetic test data generated from its own learned patterns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates artificial copies of real anomalies through synthetic data generation. By generating artificial anomalies that mimic real failure patterns, the system can validate its detection capabilities without requiring actual failure data or specialized testing equipment, reducing operational complexity and cost.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Measurement precision

If all sensor data is collected and processed, then detection accuracy improves, but computing resource waste increases due to processing unused data

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveanomaly detection accuracyVSAvoidcomputing resource consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the sensor data processing by identifying and focusing only on the specific features and parameters that are relevant for anomaly detection. The unsupervised learning model learns to distinguish between useful predictive features and irrelevant data, processing only the necessary information while ignoring redundant sensor inputs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts which parameters and features are processed based on what the machine learning model identifies as relevant for predicting failures. By changing the set of active monitoring parameters based on learned patterns, the system optimizes computing resource usage while maintaining high detection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Productivity

If periodic testing at predetermined intervals is used, then maintenance scheduling is simple, but premature replacement occurs and materials are wasted

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveproduction continuityVSAvoidmaterial waste from premature replacement
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from static periodic testing intervals to dynamic, condition-based monitoring. The machine learning model continuously analyzes real-time sensor data and adjusts maintenance predictions based on actual machine condition, enabling maintenance to be performed only when and if failures are actually predicted, rather than following fixed schedules.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary detection of anomalies and predicts failures before they occur, enabling proactive maintenance planning. By identifying potential failures in advance based on actual condition data rather than predetermined intervals, the system allows maintenance to be scheduled optimally, avoiding both premature replacement and unexpected downtime.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS11403551B2System and method for validating unsupervised machine learning models
Publication Date: 2022.08.02 AB SKF SKF PATENT DEPARTMENT
  • US11403551B2 patent drawing
  • US11403551B2 patent drawing
  • US11403551B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system and method for validating unsupervised machine learning models. The method includes: analyzing, via unsupervised machine learning, a plurality of sensory inputs associated with a machine, wherein the unsupervised machine learning outputs at least one normal behavior pattern of the machine; generating, based on the at least one normal behavior pattern, at least one artificial anomaly, wherein each artificial anomaly deviates from the at least one normal behavior pattern; injecting the at least one artificial anomaly into the plurality of sensory inputs to create an artificial dataset; and analyzing the artificial dataset to determine whether a candidate model is a valid representation of operation of the machine, wherein analyzing the artificial dataset further comprises running the candidate model using the artificial dataset as an input.