skip to main content
research-article

Screw Slot Quality Inspection System Based on Tactile Network

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The popularity of 5G networks has made smart manufacturing not limited to high-tech industries such as semiconductors due to its high speed, ultra-high reliability, and low latency. With the advance of system on chip (SoC) design and manufacturing, 5G is also suitable for data transmission in harsh manufacturing environments such as high temperatures, dust, and extreme vibration. The defect of the screw head is caused by the wear and deformation of the die forming the head after mass production. Therefore, the screw quality inspection system based on the tactile network in this article monitors the production quality of the screw; the system will send a warning signal through the router to remind the technician to solve the production problem when the machine produces a defective product. Sensors are embedded into the traditional screw heading machine, and sensing data are transmitted through a gateway to the voluntary computing node for screw slot quality inspection. The anomaly detection data set collected by the screw heading machine has a ratio of anomaly to normal data of 0.006; thus, we propose a time-series deep AutoEncoder architecture for anomaly detection of screw slots. Our experimental results show that the proposed solution outperforms existing works in terms of efficiency and that the specificity and accuracy can reach 97% through the framework proposed in this article.

References

  1. J. Davis, T. Edgar, J. Porter, J. Bernaden, and Michael Sarli. 2012. Smart manufacturing, manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance. Computers and Chemical Engineering 47 (2012), 145–156. DOI:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.037Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. G. P. Fettweis. 2014. The tactile Internet applications and challenges. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine 9, 1 (2014), 64–70. DOI:10.1109/MVT.2013.2295069Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. H. Bourl and Y. Kamp. 1988. Auto-Association by multilayer perceptrons and singular value decomposition. Biological Cybernetics 59 (1988), 291–294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Ballard. 1987. Modular learning in neural networks. In AAAI Conference 1 (1987), 279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Rumelhart, G. Hinton, and R. Williams. 1986. Recurrent neural networks. 1986. Nature. 323 (1986), 533–536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Schuster and K. Paliwal. 1997. Bidirectional recurrent neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 45, 11 (1997), 2673–2681. DOI:10.1109/78.650093 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. Szegedy, S. Ioffe, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Alemi. 2017. Inception-V4, Inception-Resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. 2017. In AAAI Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar. 2009. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 41, 3 (2009), 15. DOI:10.1145/1541880.1541882 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Chalapathy and S. Chawla. 2019. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A survey. arXiv:1901.03407. DOI:10.1007/s10586-017-1117-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Mohammadi, A. Al-Fuqaha, S. Sorour, and M. Guizani. 2018. Deep learning for IoT big data and streaming analytics: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 20, 4 (2018), 2923–2960. DOI:10.1109/COMST.2018.2844341Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Denning. 1987. An intrusion detection model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 13, 2 (1987), 222–32. DOI:10.1109/SP.1986.10010 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. N. Ye. 2000. A Markov chain model of temporal behavior for anomaly detection. In IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Ray. 2003. Symbolic dynamic analysis of complex systems for anomaly detection. Signal Processing 84, 7 (2003), 1115–1130. DOI:10.1016/j.sigpro.2004.03.011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Hollmen and V. Tresp. 1997. Call-based fraud detection in mobile communication networks using a hierarchical regime-switching model. In NIPS Conference. Denver, CO, November 30–December 5, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Guttormsson, R. Marks, M. El-Sharkawi, and I. Kerszenbaum. 1999. Elliptical novelty grouping for on-line short-turn detection of excited running rotors. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 14, 1 (1999), 16–22. DOI:10.1109/60.749142Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. C. Yiakopoulos, K. Gryllias, M. Chioua, M. Hollender, and I. Antoniadis. 2016. An on-line SAX and HMM-based anomaly detection and visualization tool for early disturbance discovery in a dynamic industrial process. Journal of Process Control 44 (2016), 134–159. DOI:10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.05.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. K. Wang and S. Stolfo. 2003. Anomalous payload-based network intrusion detection. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection: 7th International Symposium, September 15-17, 2003, France, 1973–2020. DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-30143-1_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. R. Puttini, Z. Marrakchi, and L. Mé. 2003. A Bayesian classification model for real-time intrusion detection. In AIP Conference Proceedings 659 (2003), 150. DOI:10.1063/1.1570541Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. Amer, M. Goldstein, and S. Abdennadher. 2013. Enhancing one-class support vector machines for unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Outlier Detection and Description Conference. DOI:10.1145/2500853.2500857 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. Scholkopf, R. Williamson, A. Smola, J. Shawe-Taylort, and J. Platt. 2000. Support vector method for novelty detection. In NIPS Conference, November 29–December 4, 2000, Denver, CO. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Ma and S. Perkins. 2003. Time-series novelty detection using one-class support vector machines. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks 3 (2000). DOI:10.1109/IJCNN.2003.1223670Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Mahadevan and S. Shah. 2009. Fault detection and diagnosis in process data using one-class support vector machines. Journal of Process Control 19, 3 (2009), 1627–1639. DOI:10.1016/j.jprocont.2009.07.011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. Markou and S. Singh. 2003. Novelty detection: A review—part 2: neural network based approaches. Signal Process 83, 12 (2003), 2499–2521. DOI:10.1016/j.sigpro.2003.07.018 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Bishop. 1994. Novelty detection and neural network validation. IEEE Proceedings—Vision, Image and Signal Processing 141, 4 (1994), 217–222. DOI:10.1049/ip-vis:19941330Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. J. Ryan, M. Jang Lin, and R. Miikkulainen. 1997. Intrusion detection with neural networks. In Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Advances in Neural Iinformation Processing Systems Denver, Colorado, USA. MIT Press, 943--949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Crook and G. Hayes. A robot implementation of a biologically inspired method for novelty detection. In Proceedings of Towards Intelligent Mobile Robots Conference. Report number UMCS-01-4-1. Manchester, Manchester University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. S. Marsland, U. Nehmzow, and J. Shapiro. 2000. A real-time novelty detector for a mobile robot. In Proceedings of the EUREL European Advanced Robotics Systems Masterclass and Conference. https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0006006.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Fu, D. Cheng, Y. Tu, and L. Zhang. 2016. Credit card fraud detection using convolutional neural networks. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP'16), 483--490. Kyoto, Japan, Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-46675-0_53Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Rumelhart, G. Hinton, and R. Williams. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323 (1986), 533–536. DOI:10.1038/323533a0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. M. Munoz-Organero. 2019. Outlier detection in wearable sensor data for human activity recognition (HAR) based on DRNNs. IEEE Access 7, 74422–74436. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2921096Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. M. A. Khan, M. R. Karim, and Y. Kim. 2019. A scalable and hybrid intrusion detection system based on the convolutional-LSTM network. Symmetry 11, 4 (2019), 583, DOI:10.3390/sym11040583 9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Hawkins, H. He, G. Williams, and R. Baxter. 2002. Outlier detection using replicator neural networks. In DaWaK, Springer (2002). 170–180. DOI:10.1007/3-540-46145-0_17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. J. An and S. Cho. 2015. Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability. Special Lecture on IE. DOI:10.6633/IJNS.201511.17(6).03Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. B. Zong, Q. Song, M. Renqiang Min, W. Cheng, C. Lumezanu, D. Cho, and H. Chen. 2018. Deep autoencoding Gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection. In ICLR. February 16, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. K. Reddy, S. Sarkar, V. Venug Opalan, and M. Giering. 2016. Anomaly detection and fault disambiguation in large flight data: A multi-modal deep auto-encoder approach. In Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society. PHM Society, Denver, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36001/phmconf.2016.v8i1.2549.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. M. Sakurada and T. Yairi. 2014. Anomaly detection using autoencoders with nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In Proceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2nd Workshop on Machine Learning for Sensory Data Analysis Gold Coast, Australia. Association for Computing Machinery Press, 4--11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2689746.2689747 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Z. Li1, J. Li1, Y. Wang, and K. Wang. 2019. A deep learning approach for anomaly detection based on SAE and LSTM in mechanical equipment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 103 (2019), 499–510. DOI:10.1007/s00170-019-03557-wGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. S. Ma, M. Chen, J. Wu, Y. Wang, B. Jia, and Y. Jiang. 2018. High-voltage circuit breaker fault diagnosis using a hybrid feature transformation approach based on random forest and stacked autoencoder. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 66, 12 (2018), 9777–9788. DOI:10.1109/TIE.2018.2879308Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. M. Breunig, H. Peter Kriegel, R. Ng, and J. Sander. 2000. LOF: Identifying density-based local outliers. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, (2000), Dallas, Texas, USA. Association for Computing Machinery Press, 93--104. DOI:10.1145/342009.335388 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. Tang, Z. Chen, A. Waichee Fu, and D. Cheung. 2005. Capabilities of outlier detection schemes in large datasets, framework and methodologies. Knowledge and Information Systems 11, 1 (2005), 45–84. DOI:10.1007/s10115-005-0233-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. F. Tony Liu, K. Ming Ting, and F. Tony Liu, K. Ming Ting. 2008. Isolation Forest. In Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'08), Vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society Press, 413--422. DOI:10.1109/ICDM.2008.17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. L. Pugginia and S. McLooneb. 2018. An enhanced variable selection and isolation forest based methodology for anomaly detection with OES. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 67 (2018), 126–135. DOI:10.1016/j.engappai.2017.09.021 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. J. Ma, L. Sun, H. Wang, Y. Zhang, and U. Aickelin. 2016. Supervised anomaly detection in uncertain pseudoperiodic data streams. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 16, 1 (2016), 4. DOI:10.1145/2806890 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. M. T. Luong, P. Hieu, and M. D. Christopher. 2015. Effective approaches to attention-based neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP'15). Association for Computational Linguistics Press, 1412--1421. DOI:10.18653/v1/D15-1166Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Screw Slot Quality Inspection System Based on Tactile Network

    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 Internet Technology
      ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 21, Issue 4
      November 2021
      520 pages
      ISSN:1533-5399
      EISSN:1557-6051
      DOI:10.1145/3472282
      • Editor:
      • Ling Lu
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 July 2021
      • Accepted: 1 September 2020
      • Revised: 1 August 2020
      • Received: 1 May 2020
      Published in toit Volume 21, Issue 4

      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

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!