skip to main content
research-article

Fog-supported Low-latency Monitoring of System Disruptions in Industry 4.0: A Federated Learning Approach

Published:24 May 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Industry 4.0 is based on machine learning and advanced digital technologies, such as Industrial-Internet-of-Things and Cyber-Physical-Production-Systems, to collect and process data coming from manufacturing systems. Thus, several industrial issues may be further investigated including, flows disruptions, machines’ breakdowns, quality crisis, and so on. In this context, traditional machine learning techniques require the data to be stored and processed in a central entity, e.g., a cloud server. However, these techniques are not suitable for all manufacturing use cases, due to the inaccessibility of private data such as resources’ localization in real time, which cannot be shared at the cloud level as they contain personal and sensitive information. Therefore, there is a critical need to go toward decentralized learning solutions to handle efficiently distributed private sub-datasets of manufacturing systems.

In this article, we design a new monitoring tool for system disruption related to the localization of mobile resources. Our tool may identify mobile resources (human operators) that are in unexpected locations, and hence has a high probability to disturb production planning. To do so, we use federated deep learning, as distributed learning technique, to build a prediction model of resources locations in manufacturing systems. Our prediction model is generated based on resources locations defined in the initial tasks schedule. Thus, system disruptions are detected, in real time, when comparing predicted locations to the real ones, that is collected through the IoT network. In addition, our monitoring tool is deployed at Fog computing level that provides local data processing support with low latency.

Furthermore, once a system disruption is detected, we develop a dynamic rescheduling module that assigns each task to the nearest available resource while improving the execution accuracy and reducing the execution delay. Therefore, we formulate an optimization problem of tasks rescheduling, before solving it using the meta-heuristic Tabu search. The numerical results show the efficiency of our schemes in terms of prediction accuracy when compared to other machine learning algorithms, in addition to their ability to detect and resolve system disruption in real time.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] [n.d.]. TensorFlow Federated. Retrived May 29, 2020 from https://www.tensorflow.org/federated.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] [n.d.]. What Is Industry 4.0. Retrieved July 1, 2020 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/09/02/what-is-industry-4-0-heres-a-super-easy-explanation-for-anyone/14ca62909788.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Aazam M., Zeadally S., and Harras K. A.. 2018. Deploying fog computing in industrial internet of things and industry 4.0. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 14, 10 (October 2018), 46744682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Al-Fuqaha A., Guizani M., Mohammadi M., Aledhari M., and Ayyash M.. 2015. Internet of Things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17, 4 (2015), 23472376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [5] Brik Bouziane, Bettayeb Belgacem, Sahnoun M’hammed, and Duval Fabrice. 2019. Towards predicting system disruption in industry 4.0: Machine learning-based approach. Proc. Comput. Sci. 151 (2019), 667674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Brik Bouziane, Bettayeb Belgacem, Sahnoun M’hammed, and Louis Anne. 2019. Accuracy and localization-aware rescheduling for flexible flow shops in industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT’19). IEEE, 19291934.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Brik B., Ksentini A., and Bouaziz M.. 2020. Federated learning for UAVs-enabled wireless networks: Use cases, challenges, and open problems. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 5384153849. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Brzezinski J. R. and Knafl G. J.. 1999. Logistic regression modeling for context-based classification. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’99). 755759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Chen B., Wan J., Shu L., Li P., Mukherjee M., and Yin B.. 2018. Smart factory of industry 4.0: Key technologies, application case, and challenges. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 65056519. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Engel Yagil and Etzion Opher. 2011. Towards proactive event-driven computing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based System (DEBS’11). ACM, New York, NY, 125136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Fattore Umberto, Liebsch Marco, Brik Bouziane, and Ksentini Adlen. 2020. AutoMEC: LSTM-based user mobility prediction for service management in distributed MEC resources. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWiM’20). New York, NY, 155159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Feldman Zohar, Fournier Fabiana, Franklin Rod, and Metzger Andreas. 2013. Proactive event processing in action: A case study on the proactive management of transport processes (industry article). In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-based Systems (DEBS’13). ACM, New York, NY, 97106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Gao K., Yang F., Zhou M., Pan Q., and Suganthan P. N.. 2018. Flexible job-shop rescheduling for new job insertion by using discrete jaya algorithm. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. 49, 5 (2019), 1944–1955. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Glover Fred, Kelly James P., and Laguna Manuel. 1995. Genetic algorithms and tabu search: Hybrids for optimization. Comput. Operat. Res. 22, 1 (1995), 111134. Genetic Algorithms.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Gupta Harshit, Dastjerdi Amir Vahid, Ghosh Soumya K., and Buyya Rajkumar. 2016. iFogSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in internet of things, edge and fog computing environments. Software: Practice and Experience 47, 9 (2017), 1275–1296. arXiv:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Imen Bouzarkouna, M’hammed Sahnoun, Nouha Sghaier, David Baudry, and Christian Gout. 2018. Challenges facing the industrial implementation of fog computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud’18). IEEE, 341348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Kaluža Boštjan, Mirchevska Violeta, Dovgan Erik, Luštrek Mitja, and Gams Matjaž. 2010. An agent-based approach to care in independent living. In Ambient Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 177186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Kamal H., Coupechoux M., and Godlewski P.. 2010. A Tabu search DSA algorithm for reward maximization in cellular networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications. 4045. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Kan A. H. G. Rinnooy. 2012. Machine Scheduling Problems: Classification, Complexity and Computations. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Kaur Manjot and Mohta Aakash. 2019. A review of deep learning with recurrent neural network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT’19). 460465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Kilkki Kalevi, Mäntylä Martti, Karhu Kimmo, Hämmäinen Heikki, and Ailisto Heikki. 2018. A disruption framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129 (2018), 275284. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Koulamas Christos. 1994. The total tardiness problem: Review and extensions. Operat. Res. 42 (12 1994), 10251041. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Lade P., Ghosh R., and Srinivasan S.. 2017. Manufacturing analytics and industrial internet of things. IEEE Intell. Syst. 32, 3 (May 2017), 7479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Lai Shiqi and Chen Tongwen. 2017. A method for pattern mining in multiple alarm flood sequences. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 117 (2017), 831839.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Lin C. and Yang J.. 2018. Cost-efficient deployment of fog computing systems at logistics centers in industry 4.0. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 14, 10 (October 2018), 46034611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Martinez-Arroyo M. and Sucar L. E.. 2006. Learning an optimal Naive bayes classifier. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06), Vol. 3. 1236–1239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Metzger A., Franklin R., and Engel Y.. 2012. Predictive monitoring of heterogeneous service-oriented business networks: The transport and logistics case. In Proceedings of the Annual SRII Global Conference. 313322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Omar A., Imen B., M’hammed S., Bouziane B., and David B.. 2019. Deployment of fog computing platform for cyber physical production system based on docker technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Automation and Industrial Diagnostics (ICAAID’19), Vol. 1. 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Peralta G., Iglesias-Urkia M., Barcelo M., Gomez R., Moran A., and Bilbao J.. 2017. Fog computing based efficient IoT scheme for the industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and Their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM’17). 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Rao R.. 2016. Jaya: A simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems. Int. J. Industr. Eng. Comput. 7, 1 (2016), 1934.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Safavian S. R. and Landgrebe D.. 1991. A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 21, 3 (May 1991), 660674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Sejdovic S. and Kleiner N.. 2016. Proactive and dynamic event-driven disruption management in the manufacturing domain. In Proceedings of the IEEE 14th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN’16). 13201325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] ShangGuan Chun Xia, Li Jun Tao, and Shi Rui Feng. 2012. Rescheduling of parallel machines under machine failures. In Manufacturing Science and Materials Engineering (Advanced Materials Research), Vol. 443. 724730.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Sisinni Emiliano, Saifullah Abusayeed, Han Song, Jennehag Ulf, and Gidlund Mikael. 2018. Industrial internet of things: Challenges, opportunities, and directions. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 14, 11 (2018), 47244734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Valledor Pablo, Gomez Alberto, Priore Paolo, and Puente Javier. 2018. Solving multi-objective rescheduling problems in dynamic permutation flow shop environments with disruptions. Int. J. Product. Res. 56, 19 (2018), 63636377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Xiong Jian, Xing Li ning, and Chen Ying wu. 2013. Robust scheduling for multi-objective flexible job-shop problems with random machine breakdowns. Int. J. Product. Econ. 141, 1 (2013), 112126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Fog-supported Low-latency Monitoring of System Disruptions in Industry 4.0: A Federated Learning Approach

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems
          ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems  Volume 6, Issue 2
          April 2022
          247 pages
          ISSN:2378-962X
          EISSN:2378-9638
          DOI:10.1145/3530302
          • Editor:
          • Chenyang Lu
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 24 May 2022
          • Online AM: 4 February 2022
          • Accepted: 1 July 2021
          • Revised: 1 June 2021
          • Received: 1 August 2020
          Published in tcps Volume 6, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format