4.1 Review

Ensuring the Robustness and Reliability of Data-Driven Knowledge Discovery Models in Production and Manufacturing

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/frai.2021.576892

关键词

machine learning; robustness; industry 4.0; smart manufacturing; industrial production; CRISP- DM

资金

  1. X-pro project
  2. government of Upper Austria
  3. Austrian Science Fund [P 30031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CRISP-DM is a widely accepted data mining standard process, while GCRISP-DS is an extension designed to address industry-specific data and model-related issues, emphasizing the interdependencies between business understanding and model quality.
The Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) is a widely accepted framework in production and manufacturing. This data-driven knowledge discovery framework provides an orderly partition of the often complex data mining processes to ensure a practical implementation of data analytics and machine learning models. However, the practical application of robust industry-specific data-driven knowledge discovery models faces multiple data- and model development-related issues. These issues need to be carefully addressed by allowing a flexible, customized and industry-specific knowledge discovery framework. For this reason, extensions of CRISP-DM are needed. In this paper, we provide a detailed review of CRISP-DM and summarize extensions of this model into a novel framework we call Generalized Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Science (GCRISP-DS). This framework is designed to allow dynamic interactions between different phases to adequately address data- and model-related issues for achieving robustness. Furthermore, it emphasizes also the need for a detailed business understanding and the interdependencies with the developed models and data quality for fulfilling higher business objectives. Overall, such a customizable GCRISP-DS framework provides an enhancement for model improvements and reusability by minimizing robustness-issues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据