On Applying the Prognostic Performance Metrics

Prognostics performance evaluation has gained significant attention in the past few years. As prognostics technology matures and more sophisticated methods for prognostic uncertainty management are developed, a standardized methodology for performance evaluation becomes extremely important to guide improvement efforts in a constructive manner. This paper is in continuation of previous efforts where several new evaluation metrics tailored for prognostics were introduced and were shown to effectively evaluate various algorithms as compared to other conventional metrics. Specifically, this paper presents a detailed discussion on how these metrics should be interpreted and used. Several shortcomings identified, while applying these metrics to a variety of real applications, are also summarized along with discussions that attempt to alleviate these problems. Further, these metrics have been enhanced to include the capability of incorporating probability distribution information from prognostic algorithms as opposed to evaluation based on point estimates only. Several methods have been suggested and guidelines have been provided to help choose one method over another based on probability distribution characteristics. These approaches also offer a convenient and intuitive visualization of algorithm performance with respect to some of these new metrics like prognostic horizon and alpha-lambda performance, and also quantify the corresponding performance while incorporating the uncertainty information.

[1]  P. Sandborn,et al.  The analysis of Return on Investment for PHM applied to electronic systems , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management.

[2]  Sankalita Saha,et al.  Evaluating algorithm performance metrics tailored for prognostics , 2009, 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference.

[3]  George J. Vachtsevanos,et al.  A particle-filtering approach for on-line fault diagnosis and failure prognosis , 2009 .

[5]  Bhaskar Saha,et al.  Prognostics Methods for Battery Health Monitoring Using a Bayesian Framework , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[6]  Chunsheng Yang,et al.  Model evaluation for prognostics: estimating cost saving for the end users , 2007, Sixth International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA 2007).

[7]  Angel R. Martinez,et al.  : Exploratory data analysis with MATLAB ® , 2007 .

[8]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences , 2004, Technometrics.

[9]  T. Yoneyama,et al.  Prognostics performance metrics and their relation to requirements, design, verification and cost-benefit , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management.

[10]  F. Mosteller,et al.  Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis , 1985 .

[11]  K. Goebel,et al.  Metrics for evaluating performance of prognostic techniques , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management.