Analyzing and Predicting Overall Equipment Effectiveness in Manufacturing Industries using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the use of machine learning algorithms to derive an approximated metric model for predicting the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) from an industrial process. Analyzing this information, it is possible to ensure better understanding of the business and stimulating the search for improvements of the productive efficiency in industries. In this context, our objective is to explore and apply different ML techniques (supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms) to derive an approximated metric for estimating the overall efficiency in a production line using historical data (dataset) obtained from actual machines in a factory. By using the manufacturing data of a product and specific learning algorithms, a prediction model is created to identify the ideal OEE metric, indicating that the equipment will be used according to its capacity and productive efficiency. Thus, we are able to predict the OEE of a given machine, and to analyze the behavior obtained in order to improve production. From the learning OEE metric, it is possible to analyze the equipment behavior and verify the existence of some patterns which could be used to propose improvements in the manufacturing process. Experimental results have demonstrated the feasibility and evaluation of the proposed models for verifying the efficiency of the industrial plant for different business standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".