Cited by 15Fault Detection and Control SystemsAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection

Scalable anomaly detection in manufacturing systems using an interpretable deep learning approach

Open access
Schlegl, Thomas, Schlegl, Stefan, West, Nikolai, Deuse, Jochen·2021·Procedia CIRP

Abstract

Anomaly detection in manufacturing systems has great potential for the prevention of critical quality faults. In recent years, unsupervised deep learning has shown to frequently outperform conventional methods for anomaly detection. However, tuning, deploying and debugging deep learning models is a time-consuming task, limiting their practical applicability in manufacturing systems. We approach this problem by developing a deep learning model that learns interpretable shapes that can be used for anomaly detection in temporal process data. Application of the model to assembly tightening processes in the automotive industry shows a significant improvement in model interpretability and scalability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.261

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. F. Hohman, H. Park, C. Robinson, D. H. Chau, Summit: Scaling deep learn- ing interpretability byvisualizing activation and attribution summariza- tions, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2017).
  2. M. Kahng, P. Andrews, A. Kalro, D. H. Chau, Visual exploration of industry-scale deep neural network models, IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schlegl, T., Schlegl, S., West, N., & Deuse, J.
Affiliations
  • BMW (Germany) (DE)
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Schlegl, Thomas
Venue
Procedia CIRP
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
104
Pages
1547-1552
ISSN
2212-8271 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3217796474
Cited by
15
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Procedia CIRP (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Keywords
anomaly detection, manufacturing systems, explainable deep learning, automotive industry, model interpretability, scalability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review