Luis Basora , Arthur Viens , Manuel Arias Chao , Xavier Olive
{"title":"深度学习预报学的不确定性量化基准","authors":"Luis Basora , Arthur Viens , Manuel Arias Chao , Xavier Olive","doi":"10.1016/j.ress.2024.110513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Reliable uncertainty quantification on RUL prediction is crucial for informative decision-making in predictive maintenance. In this context, we assess some of the latest developments in the field of uncertainty quantification for deep learning prognostics. This includes the state-of-the-art variational inference algorithms for Bayesian neural networks (BNN) as well as popular alternatives such as Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), deep ensembles (DE), and heteroscedastic neural networks (HNN). All the inference techniques share the same inception architecture as functional model. The performance of the methods is evaluated on a subset of the large NASA N-CMAPSS dataset for aircraft engines. The assessment includes RUL prediction accuracy, the quality of predictive uncertainty, and the possibility of breaking down the total predictive uncertainty into its aleatoric and epistemic parts. Although all methods are close in terms of accuracy, we find differences in the way they estimate uncertainty. Thus, DE and MCD generally provide more conservative predictive uncertainty than BNN. Surprisingly, HNN achieve strong results without the added complexity of BNN. None of these methods exhibited strong robustness to out-of-distribution cases, with BNN and HNN methods particularly susceptible to low accuracy and overconfidence. BNN techniques presented anomalous miscalibration issues at the later stages of the system lifetime.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54500,"journal":{"name":"Reliability Engineering & System Safety","volume":"253 ","pages":"Article 110513"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A benchmark on uncertainty quantification for deep learning prognostics\",\"authors\":\"Luis Basora , Arthur Viens , Manuel Arias Chao , Xavier Olive\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ress.2024.110513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Reliable uncertainty quantification on RUL prediction is crucial for informative decision-making in predictive maintenance. In this context, we assess some of the latest developments in the field of uncertainty quantification for deep learning prognostics. This includes the state-of-the-art variational inference algorithms for Bayesian neural networks (BNN) as well as popular alternatives such as Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), deep ensembles (DE), and heteroscedastic neural networks (HNN). All the inference techniques share the same inception architecture as functional model. The performance of the methods is evaluated on a subset of the large NASA N-CMAPSS dataset for aircraft engines. The assessment includes RUL prediction accuracy, the quality of predictive uncertainty, and the possibility of breaking down the total predictive uncertainty into its aleatoric and epistemic parts. Although all methods are close in terms of accuracy, we find differences in the way they estimate uncertainty. Thus, DE and MCD generally provide more conservative predictive uncertainty than BNN. Surprisingly, HNN achieve strong results without the added complexity of BNN. None of these methods exhibited strong robustness to out-of-distribution cases, with BNN and HNN methods particularly susceptible to low accuracy and overconfidence. BNN techniques presented anomalous miscalibration issues at the later stages of the system lifetime.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54500,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reliability Engineering & System Safety\",\"volume\":\"253 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110513\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reliability Engineering & System Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832024005854\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reliability Engineering & System Safety","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832024005854","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
A benchmark on uncertainty quantification for deep learning prognostics
Reliable uncertainty quantification on RUL prediction is crucial for informative decision-making in predictive maintenance. In this context, we assess some of the latest developments in the field of uncertainty quantification for deep learning prognostics. This includes the state-of-the-art variational inference algorithms for Bayesian neural networks (BNN) as well as popular alternatives such as Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), deep ensembles (DE), and heteroscedastic neural networks (HNN). All the inference techniques share the same inception architecture as functional model. The performance of the methods is evaluated on a subset of the large NASA N-CMAPSS dataset for aircraft engines. The assessment includes RUL prediction accuracy, the quality of predictive uncertainty, and the possibility of breaking down the total predictive uncertainty into its aleatoric and epistemic parts. Although all methods are close in terms of accuracy, we find differences in the way they estimate uncertainty. Thus, DE and MCD generally provide more conservative predictive uncertainty than BNN. Surprisingly, HNN achieve strong results without the added complexity of BNN. None of these methods exhibited strong robustness to out-of-distribution cases, with BNN and HNN methods particularly susceptible to low accuracy and overconfidence. BNN techniques presented anomalous miscalibration issues at the later stages of the system lifetime.
期刊介绍:
Elsevier publishes Reliability Engineering & System Safety in association with the European Safety and Reliability Association and the Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis Division. The international journal is devoted to developing and applying methods to enhance the safety and reliability of complex technological systems, like nuclear power plants, chemical plants, hazardous waste facilities, space systems, offshore and maritime systems, transportation systems, constructed infrastructure, and manufacturing plants. The journal normally publishes only articles that involve the analysis of substantive problems related to the reliability of complex systems or present techniques and/or theoretical results that have a discernable relationship to the solution of such problems. An important aim is to balance academic material and practical applications.