Robust and Interpretable Policy Learning for Manufacturing Process Parameters

References

• Akinsolu MO, Zribi K (2023) A generalized framework for adopting regression-based predictive modeling in manufacturing environments. Inventions 8(1):32.Google Scholar
• Alaa A, Schaar M (2018) Limits of estimating heterogeneous treatment effects: Guidelines for practical algorithm design. Dy J, Krause A, eds. Proc. 35th Internat. Conf. Machine Learn., vol. 80 (PMLR, New York), 129–138.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Wager S (2021) Policy learning with observational data. Econometrica 89(1):133–161.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Chetty R, Imbens G (2020) Combining experimental and observational data to estimate treatment effects on long term outcomes. Preprint, submitted June 17, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09676v1.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW, Wager S (2018) Approximate residual balancing: Debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodology 80(4):597–623.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Tibshirani J, Wager S (2019) Generalized random forests. Ann. Statist. 47(2):1148–1178.Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chernozhukov V, Fernández-Val I, Hansen C (2017) Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica 85(1):233–298.Google Scholar
• Box GEP, Wilson KB (1951) On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 13(1):1–38.Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, Duflo E, Hansen C, Newey W, Robins J (2018) Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econometrics J. 21(1):C1–C68.Google Scholar
• Chipman HA, George EI, McCulloch RE (2010) BART: Bayesian additive regression trees. Ann. Appl. Statist. 4(1):266–298.Google Scholar
• Dudík M, Langford J, Li L (2011) Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning. Preprint, submitted March 23, https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4601v1.Google Scholar
• Fernández-Loría C, Provost F (2022) Causal decision making and causal effect estimation are not the same… and why it matters. INFORMS J. Data Sci. 1(1):4–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Groover MP (2010) Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Guidotti R, Monreale A, Ruggieri S, Turini F, Giannotti F, Pedreschi D (2018) A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surveys 51(5):1–42.Google Scholar
• Horvitz DG, Thompson DJ (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47(260):663–685.Google Scholar
• Hung Y-H, Lee C-Y (2024) BMB-LIME: LIME with modeling local nonlinearity and uncertainty in explainability. Knowledge Based Systems 294:111732.Google Scholar
• Hung Y-H, Lee C-Y, Tsai C-H, Lu Y-M (2022) Constrained particle swarm optimization for health maintenance in three-mass resonant servo control system with LuGre friction model. Ann. Oper. Res. 311:131–150.Google Scholar
• Jayal AD, Badurdeen F, Dillon OW Jr, Jawahir IS (2010) Sustainable manufacturing: Modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels. CIRP J. Manufacturing Sci. Tech. 2(3):144–152.Google Scholar
• Kitagawa T, Tetenov A (2018) Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice. Econometrica 86(2):591–616.Google Scholar
• Künzel SR, Sekhon JS, Bickel PJ, Yu B (2019) Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(10):4156–4165.Google Scholar
• Liu H, Hussain F, Tan CL, Dash M (2002) Discretization: An enabling technique. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 6:393–423.Google Scholar
• Liveline Technologies (2019) Multi-stage continuous-flow manufacturing process. Accessed March 11, 2025, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/supergus/multistage-continuousflow-manufacturing-process.Google Scholar
• Lundberg SM, Lee S-I (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Guyon I, Von Luxburg U, Bengio S, Wallach H, Fergus R, Vishwanathan S, Garnett R, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2017) (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY), 4768–4777.Google Scholar
• McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR (2004) Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psych. Methods 9(4):403–425.Google Scholar
• McCaffrey DF, Griffin BA, Almirall D, Slaughter ME, Ramchand R, Burgette LF (2013) A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Statist. Medicine 32(19):3388–3414.Google Scholar
• Nie X, Wager S (2021) Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika 108(2):299–319.Google Scholar
• Oleghe O (2020) A predictive noise correction methodology for manufacturing process datasets. J. Big Data 7(1):89.Google Scholar
• Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Krishnapuram B, Shah M, eds. Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 1135–1144.Google Scholar
• Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP (1994) Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 89(427):846–866.Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Ed. Psych. 66(5):688–701.Google Scholar
• Schweisthal J, Frauen D, Melnychuk V, Feuerriegel S (2023) Reliable off-policy learning for dosage combinations. Oh A, Naumann T, Globerson A, Saenko K, Hardt M, Levine S, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023) (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY), 67900–67924.Google Scholar
• Senoner T, Netland T, Feuerriegel S (2021) Using explainable artificial intelligence to improve process quality: Evidence from semiconductor manufacturing. Management Sci. 68(8):5704–5723.Google Scholar
• Shim D-S, Baek G-Y, Seo J-S, Shin G-Y, Kim K-P, Lee K-Y (2016) Effect of layer thickness setting on deposition characteristics in direct energy deposition (DED) process. Optics Laser Tech. 86:69–78.Google Scholar
• Sokol K, Flach P (2025) LIMEtree: Consistent and faithful surrogate explanations of multiple classes. Electronics 14(5):929.Google Scholar
• Splawa-Neyman J, Dabrowska DM, Speed TP (1990) On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statist. Sci. 5(4):465–472.Google Scholar
• Stuart EA (2010) Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statist. Sci. 25(1):1–21.Google Scholar
• Sun J, Crawford FW (2023) The role of discretization scales in causal inference with continuous-time treatment. Preprint, submitted June 15, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08840.Google Scholar
• Swaminathan A, Joachims T (2015) Batch learning from logged bandit feedback through counterfactual risk minimization. J. Machine Learn. Res. 16(1):1731–1755.Google Scholar
• Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y (2004) Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Thakre AA (2013) Optimization of milling parameters for minimizing surface roughness using Taguchi’s approach. Internat. J. Emerging Tech. Advanced Engrg. 3(6):226–230.Google Scholar
• van der Laan MJ, Rose S (2011) Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data, Springer Series in Statistics, vol. 10 (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Wager S, Athey S (2018) Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(523):1228–1242.Google Scholar
• Weichert D, Link P, Stoll A, Rüping S, Ihlenfeldt S, Wrobel S (2019) A review of machine learning for the optimization of production processes. Internat. J. Advanced Manufacturing Tech. 104(5–8):1889–1902.Google Scholar
• Yusup N, Zain AM, Hashim SZM (2012) Evolutionary techniques in optimizing machining parameters: Review and recent applications (2007–2011). Expert Systems Appl. 39(10):9909–9927.Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Athey S, Wager S (2022) Offline multi-action policy learning: Generalization and optimization. Oper. Res. 71(1):148–183.Link, Google Scholar