IP Library Granted Patent US 12,282,303
Granted Patent B2
US 12,282,303 · App. 17/431,533 · Granted Apr 22, 2025

Deep causal learning for continuous testing, diagnosis, and optimization

Inventors: Gilles J. Benoit (Minneapolis, MN); Brian E. Brooks (St. Paul, MN); Peter O. Olson (Andover, MN); Tyler W. Olson (Woodbury, MN)
Assignee: 3M Innovative Properties Company
G05B13/042B60W40/064B60W40/08B60W40/105G05B13/021G05B13/024G05B13/0265G05B13/041G05B19/4065G05B19/41835G05B23/0229G05B23/0248G06F18/2193G06N5/043G06N5/046G06N7/01G06Q10/06315G06Q10/06395G06Q30/0202G05B2219/36301G06Q10/087
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,282,303
App. No.
17/431,533
Granted
Apr 22, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A system and methods for multivariant learning and optimization repeatedly generate self-organized experimental units (SOEUs) based on the one or more assumptions for a randomized multivariate comparison of process decisions to be provided to users of a system. The SOEUs are injected into the system to generate quantified inferences about the process decisions. Responsive to injecting the SOEUs, at least one confidence interval is identified within the quantified inferences, and the SOEUs are iteratively modified based on the at least one confidence interval to identify at least one causal interaction of the process decisions within the system. The causal interaction can be used for testing, diagnosis, and optimization of the system performance.

Claims (36)

1. A system for multivariate learning and optimization, comprising:

memory; and

a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:

receive one or more assumptions for a randomized multivariate comparison of process decisions, the process decisions to be provided to users of a system;

repeatedly generate self-organized experimental units (SOEUs) based on the one or more assumptions;

inject the SOEUs into the system to generate quantified inferences about the process decisions;

identify, responsive to injecting the SOEUs, at least one confidence interval within the quantified inferences;

compute the at least one confidence interval by statistical testing on d-scores, which are defined as differences between measured effects when a variable is activated and when it is deactivated; and

iteratively modify the SOEUs based on the at least one confidence interval to identify at least one causal interaction of the process decisions within the system.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the causal interaction is used for testing and improving upon combinatoric states of ordinal and temporal process controls.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein the causal interaction is used for queueing system demands and allocating responses.

4. The system of claim 1 , wherein the causal interaction is used for testing and improving sensor network topography, calibration and interpretation.

5. The system of claim 1 , wherein the SOEU duration and other characteristics are perturbed over time to minimize temporal and spatial interactions and maximize independence of SOEUs.

6. The system of claim 1 , wherein SOEU characteristics are used to optimize cluster assignment and improve exchangeability of SOEUs within each cluster.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein an amount of data used to generate quantified inferences (DIW) is proportional to the stability of the causal interaction in time.

8. The system of claim 7 , wherein the DIW is less than a total amount of data available by 10%, 20%, 40%, or 80%.

9. The system of claim 1 , wherein an objective function of the system changes over space and/or time.

10. The system of claim 1 , wherein random assignments are used for baseline monitoring of the system.

11. The system of claim 10 , wherein the baseline monitoring is used to objectively tune or optimize hyperparameters of the system.

12. The system of claim 1 , wherein the confidence interval provides an unbiased estimate of physical cause and effect relationships.

13. The system of claim 1 , wherein

clustering and blocking are part of how the experimental units are self-organized, and

clustering and blocking are utilized to eliminate variability and bias from potential effect modifiers.

14. The system of claim 13 , further comprising a specific data inclusion window per independent variable and per cluster.

15. The system of claim 13 , wherein an incremental value of learning versus exploiting is continually assessed.

16. The system of claim 15 , wherein the continually assessing further comprises assessing a potential impact of adding, editing, interpolating, or removing independent variables.

17. The system of claim 1 , further comprising a continuous optimization module configured to identify, monitor, and improve clustering of experimental units process and explore/exploit management by further refining the effectiveness of recommended control elements and the system's hyperparameters.

18. The system of claim 1 , further comprising model-free operation wherein there is no need to know the underlying causal diagram or process mechanisms.

19. The system of claim 1 , further comprising model-based operation wherein causal learning provides a mathematical representation of physical connections and causal mechanisms in the system.

20. A computer-implemented method comprising:

injecting randomized controlled signals into the system of interest;

ensuring the signal injections occur within normal operational ranges and constraints;

monitoring at least one performance measure of the system of interest in response to the controlled signals;

computing confidence intervals about the causal effect of the presence relative to the absence of distinct signal injections on the performance measure of the system of interest;

selecting optimal signals for the performance of the system of interest based on the computed confidence intervals; and

computing confidence intervals by statistical testing on d-scores, which are defined as differences between measured effects when a variable is activated and when it is deactivated.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 17, 2021
From: BENOIT, GILLES J.; BROOKS, BRIAN E.; OLSON, PETER O.; OLSON, TYLER W.
To: 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
Reel/Frame 057200/0773 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62818816 · Mar 15, 2019
Related Publication 20220121971A1 · Apr 21, 2022
References Cited (29)
US 7406434B1 · Chang · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 7680752B1 · Clune, III · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7822636B1 · Ferber · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 8688518B2 · Ranka · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9947018B2 · Brooks · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20060111931A1 · Johnson et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060242288A1 · Masurkar · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070244575A1 · Wojsznis et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20090157442A1 · Tesler · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090204267A1 · Sustaeta · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20100174671A1 · Brooks et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20130218529A1 · Vikstrom et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140114746A1 · Pani · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140289174A1 · Statnikov et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150142704A1 · London · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160350796A1 · Arsenault · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160353166A1 · Arsenault et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170205781A1 · Brooks · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170206467A1 · Brooks et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180076968A1 · Rosenberg · 2018 [cited by examiner]
European Patent Office Supplementary European Search Report for Application No. EP 19919662, 7 pages, Nov. 29, 2022. [cited by applicant]
Alvarez, “Introduction to Adaptive Experimental Design,” Center for Quantitative Sciences, Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Oct. 12, 2012, 96 pages. [cited by applicant]
Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Mar. 1961, vol. 56, No. 293, pp. 52-64. [cited by applicant]
Gomes, “Machine-Learning Maestro Michael Jordan on the Delusions of Big Data and Other Huge Engineering Efforts,” IEEE Spectrum, Oct. 20, 2014, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Gershman, “Computational Rationality: A Converging Paradigm for Intelligence in Brains, Minds, and Machines,” Journal of Science, Jul. 17, 2015, vol. 349, No. 6245, pp. 273-278. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report for PCT International Application No. PCT/IB2019/057673, mailed on May 12, 2020, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]
Jordan, “Machine Learning: Trends, Perspectives, and Prospects,” Journal of Science, Jul. 17, 2015, vol. 349, 6245, pp. 255-260. [cited by applicant]
Shanks, “A Re-Examination of Probability Matching and Rational Choice,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Mar. 18, 2002, vol. 15, pp. 233-250. [cited by applicant]
Spiegelhalter, “The Future Lies in Uncertainty”, Journal of Science, Jul. 18, 2014, vol. 345, No. 6194, pp. 264-265. [cited by applicant]