By Thomas Joseph, Aspire Systems
In the previous post of the series we discussed the exploratory analysis phase and saw how the combination of domain knowledge and single variable exploration unravels intuitions from the data. In this post we will expand our analysis to multiple variables and then see how intuitions we develop during the exploration phase, can lead to generating new features for modelling.
In the example we were discussing, we were limited to analysis of a single variable i.e conductance. However to get more meaningful insights we have to connect other variables layer by layer to the initial variable which we have analysed to get more insights on the problem. As far as battery is concerned some of the critical variables other than conductance are voltage and discharge. Let us connect these two variables along with the conductance profile to gain more intuitions from the data.
The above figure is a plot which depicts three variables across the same time span. The idea of plotting multiple variables together across a common time span is to unearth any discernible trends we can see together. A cursory look at this plot will reveal some obvious observations.
The fall in current and voltage in conjunction with drop in conductance. The cyclic nature of the voltage profile. A gradual drop in the troughs of the voltage profile.
Having made some observations,we now need to ascertain whether these observations can be codified to some definitive trends. This can be verified only by observing plots for many samples of similar variables. By sampling data pertaining to many batteries if we can get similar observations, then we can be sure that we have unearthed some trends explaining behaviors of different variables. However just unearthing some trends will not suffice. We have to get some intuitions from such trends which will help in transforming the raw variables to some form which will help in the modelling task. This is achieved by feature engineering the raw variables.
Feature Engineering
Many a times the given set of raw variables will not suffice for extracting the required predictive power from the model. We will have to transform the raw variables to generate new variables giving us the extra thrust towards better predictive metrics. What transformation has to be done, will be based on the intuitions we build during the exploratory analysis phase and also by combining domain knowledge. For the case of batteries let us revisit some of the intuitions we build during the exploratory analysis phase and see how these intuitions we build can be used for feature engineering.
In the previous post , we found out that precipitous fall in conductance is an indicator of failing health of a battery. So a probable feature we can extract from the conductance variable is the slope of the data points over a fixed time span.The rationale for such a feature is this, if precipitous fall in conductance over time is an indicator of failing health of a battery then the slope of data points for a battery which is failing will be more steeper than the battery which is healthy. It was observed that through such transformation there was a positive influence on predictive metrics. The dynamics of such transformation is as follows, if we have conductance data for the battery for three years, we can take consecutive three month window of conductance data and take the slope of all the data points and make it as a feature. By doing this, the number of rows of data for the variable also gets consolidated to much fewer numbers.
Let us also look at another example of feature engineering which we can introduce to the variable, discharge voltage. As seen from the above figure, the discharge voltage follows a wave like profile. It turns out that when a battery discharges the voltage first drops and then it rises. This behavior is called the “Coupe De Fouet” (CDF) effect. Now our thought should be, how do we combine the observed wave like pattern and the knowledge about CDF into a feature ? Again we have to dig into domain knowledge. As per theory on the state of health of batteries there are standards for the CDF profile of a healthy battery and that of a failing battery. These are prescribed by the manufacturer of the battery. For example the manufacturing standards prescribe certain depth to which the voltage will fall during discharge and certain height to which it will go up during a typical CDF effect. The deviance between the observed CDF and the manufacture prescribed standard can be taken as another feature. Similarly we can also think of other features related to voltage, like depth of discharge ( DOD), number of cycles etc. Our focus should be in using the available domain knowledge to transform raw variables into features.
As seen from the above two examples the essence of feature engineering is all about translating the domain knowledge and the trends seen in the data to more meaningful features. The veracity of the models which are built depends a lot on the strength of the features built. Now that we have seen the feature engineering phase let us now look at modelling strategy for this use case.
Modelling Phase
In the first part of this use case we discussed about labeling strategy for training the model. Since the use case is to predict which battery would fail and at what period of time, we have to look back in time from the failure point label for creating different classes related to periods of failure. In this specific case, the different features were created by consolidating 3 months of data into a single row. So one period before failure would denote 3 months before failure. So if the requirement is to predict failure 6 months prior to when it is likely to happen, then we will have 4 different classes i.e failure point,one period before failure(3 months prior to failure point) ,two periods before failure and (6 months prior to failure point) & normal state. All periods prior to 6 months can be labelled as normal state.
With respect to modelling, we can spot check with different classification algorithms ( logistic regression, Naive bayes, SVM, Random Forest, XGboost .. etc). The choice of final model will be based on the accuracy metrics ( sensitivity , specificity etc) of the spot checked models. Another aspect which might be useful to note is also that, data set could be highly unbalanced i.e the number of normal battery classes is likely to outnumber the failure classes disproportionately. It will be a good idea to try out class balancing methods on the data set before modelling.
Wrapping up
This post brings down curtains to the three part series on predictive analytics for industrial batteries. Any use case within the manufacturing sector can be quite challenging as the variables involved are very technical and would require lot of interventions from related domain teams. Constant engagement of domain specialist as part of the data science team is very important for the success of such projects.
I have tried my best to write the nuances of such a difficult use case. I have tried to cover the critical elements in the process. In case of any clarifications on the use case and details of its implementation you can connect with me through the following email id bayesianquest@gmail.com. Looking forward to hearing from you. Till then let me sign off.
Watch this space for more such use cases.
Bio: Thomas Joseph is Senior Data Scientist at Aspire Systems, working on growing the Data Science footprint and enabling superior delivery.
Original. Reposted with permission.
Related: