A Reliable Data Fusion and Predictive Maintenance Framework of Industrial Internet of Things Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Improving Resilience and Fast Recovery in Future Manufacturing Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/eetsis.14025Keywords:
IoT, explainable AI, trusted data fusion, fault prediction, graph attention networkAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to the development of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), it has been possible to make the predictive maintenance of the manufacturing industry using data. Nevertheless, recent developments in manufacturing systems are prone to higher levels of disruptions caused by sensor degradation, data anomalies and equipment failures, which threaten production continuity and supply chain resilience. Conventional fault predictor models have no clear data quality evaluation and readability rendering them ineffective in aiding quick recovery.
OBJECTIVES: In order to overcome these challenges, the present paper introduces TEF-Net as a reliable data fusion and predictive maintenance approach based on explainable artificial intelligence, in particular, to improve the resiliency of manufacturing systems and their ability to recover quickly in the case of data quality issues.
METHODS: The method starts by building four data quality indicators (completeness, stability, consistency across time, correlation consistency), and produces sensor trust measures through TrustNet. Such trust measures are included in dynamic graph calibration and graph attention fusion to reduce low-quality data and combine multiple source characteristics. Fault probabilities are then extracted by a Transformer-GRU architecture that uses degradation-related temporal features, and explainability is provided using trust scores, attention weights, and feature contributions.
RESULTS: The experimental findings prove that TEF-Net has an accuracy of 0.947, a recall of 0.932, a F1-score of 0.936, and an AUC of 0.982, which is better than comparative models. In multi-error disturbance environments which are used to mimic manufacturing disruptions in practice, TEF-Net retains an F1-score of 0.884, which is much less degraded than base approaches, which is a direct indicator of its ability to make manufacturing systems resilient.
CONCLUSION: The results support the statement that TEF-Net is much more accurate, strong, and understandable in predicting IIoT maintenance compared to other models and can be considered as a reliable basis of AI when it comes to predicting failures early and recovering them quickly in the future.
References
[1] Alexopoulos K, Anagiannis I, Nikolakis N, Chryssolouris G. A quantitative approach to resilience in manufacturing systems[J]. International Journal of Production Research, 2022, 60(24): 7178-7193.
[2] Zonta T, da Costa C A, da Rosa Righi R, de Lima M J, da Trindade E S, Li G P. Predictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2020, 150: 106889.
[3] Carvalho T P, Soares F A A M N, Vita R, Francisco R P, Basto J P, Alcalá S G S. A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, 137: 106024.
[4] Dalzochio J, Kunst R, Pignaton E, Binotto A, Sanyal S, Favilla J, Barbosa J. Machine learning and reasoning for predictive maintenance in Industry 4.0: Current status and challenges[J]. Computers in Industry, 2020, 123: 103298.
[5] Aivaliotis P, Georgoulias K, Chryssolouris G. The use of Digital Twin for predictive maintenance in manufacturing[J]. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2019, 32(11): 1067-1080.
[6] Çınar Z M, Nuhu A A, Zeeshan Q, Korhan O, Asmael M, Safaei B. Machine Learning in Predictive Maintenance towards Sustainable Smart Manufacturing in Industry 4.0[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(19): 8211.
[7] Achouch M, Dimitrova M, Ziane K, Sattarpanah Karganroudi S, Dhouib R, Ibrahim H, Adda M. On Predictive Maintenance in Industry 4.0: Overview, Models, and Challenges[J]. Applied Sciences, 2022, 12(16): 8081.
[8] Pech M, Vrchota J, Bednář J. Predictive Maintenance and Intelligent Sensors in Smart Factory: Review[J]. Sensors, 2021, 21(4): 1470.
[9] Ayvaz S, Alpay K. Predictive maintenance system for production lines in manufacturing: A machine learning approach using IoT data in real-time[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2021, 173: 114598.
[10] Çakır M, Güvenç M A, Mistikoğlu S. The experimental application of popular machine learning algorithms on predictive maintenance and the design of IIoT based condition monitoring system[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2021, 151: 106948.
[11] Nordal H, El-Thalji I. Modeling a predictive maintenance management architecture to meet industry 4.0 requirements: A case study[J]. Systems Engineering, 2021, 24(1): 34-50.
[12] Cummins L, Sommers A, Ramezani S B, Mittal S, Jabour J, Seale M, Rahimi S. Explainable Predictive Maintenance: A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges and Opportunities[J]. IEEE Access, 2024, 12: 57574-57602.
[13] Gawde S, Patil S, Kumar S, Kamat P, Kotecha K, Alfarhood S. Explainable Predictive Maintenance of Rotating Machines Using LIME, SHAP, PDP, ICE[J]. IEEE Access, 2024, 12: 29345-29361.
[14] Saeed W, Omlin C. Explainable AI (XAI): A systematic meta-survey of current challenges and future opportunities[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2023, 263: 110273.
[15] Dwivedi R, Dave D, Naik H, Singhal S, Omer R, Patel P, Qian B, Wen Z, Shah T, Morgan G, Ranjan R. Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions[J]. ACM Computing Surveys, 2023, 55(9): 194.
[16] Guidotti R, Monreale A, Ruggieri S, Turini F, Giannotti F, Pedreschi D. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models[J]. ACM Computing Surveys, 2018, 51(5): 93.
[17] Ucar A, Karakose M, Kırımça N. Artificial Intelligence for Predictive Maintenance Applications: Key Components, Trustworthiness, and Future Trends[J]. Applied Sciences, 2024, 14(2): 898.
[18] Dong Y, Jiang H, Mu M, Wang X. Multi-sensor data fusion-enabled lightweight convolutional double regularization contrast transformer for aerospace bearing small samples fault diagnosis[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2024, 62: 102573.
[19] Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead[J]. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2019, 1(5): 206-215.
[20] Azamfar M, Singh J, Bravo-Imaz I, Lee J. Multisensor data fusion for gearbox fault diagnosis using 2-D convolutional neural network and motor current signature analysis[J]. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2020, 144: 106861.
[21] Cui J, Xie P, Wang X, Wang J, He Q, Jiang G. M2FN: An end-to-end multi-task and multi-sensor fusion network for intelligent fault diagnosis[J]. Measurement, 2022, 204: 112085.
[22] Lin T, Zhu Y, Ren Z, Huang K, Gao D. CCFT: The Convolution and Cross-Fusion Transformer for Fault Diagnosis of Bearings[J]. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2024, 29(3): 2161-2172.
[23] Duan H, Chen G, Yu Y, Du C, Bao Z, Ma D. DyGAT-FTNet: A Dynamic Graph Attention Network for Multi-Sensor Fault Diagnosis and Time–Frequency Data Fusion[J]. Sensors, 2025, 25(3): 810.
[24] Lee S, Kim Y, Choi H J, Ji B. Uncertainty-Aware Fault Diagnosis of Rotating Compressors Using Dual-Graph Attention Networks[J]. Machines, 2025, 13(8): 673.
[25] Lundberg S M, Lee S I. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions[C]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, 30: 4765-4774.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yiting Bai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
