FailureSensorIQ: A Multi-Choice QA Dataset for Understanding Sensor Relationships and Failure Modes
Organizations: IBM · IBM TJ Watson Research Center
Abstract
We introduce FailureSensorIQ, a novel Multi-Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) benchmarking system designed to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason and understand complex, domain-specific scenarios in Industry 4.0. Unlike traditional QA benchmarks, our system focuses on multiple aspects of reasoning through failure modes, sensor data, and the relationships between them across various industrial assets. Through this work, we envision a paradigm shift where modeling decisions are not only data-driven using statistical tools like correlation analysis and significance tests, but also domain-driven by specialized LLMs which can reason about the key contributors and useful patterns that can be captured with feature engineering. We evaluate the Industrial knowledge of over a dozen LLMs-including GPT-4, Llama, and Mistral-on FailureSensorIQ from different lens using Perturbation-Uncertainty-Complexity analysis, Expert Evaluation study, Asset-Specific Knowledge Gap analysis, ReAct agent using external knowledge-bases. Even though closed-source models with strong reasoning capabilities approach expert-level performance, the comprehensive benchmark reveals a significant drop in performance that is fragile to perturbations, distractions, and inherent knowledge gaps in the models. We also provide a real-world case study of how LLMs can drive the modeling decisions on 3 different failure prediction datasets related to various assets. We release: (a) expert-curated MCQA for various industrial assets, (b) FailureSensorIQ benchmark and Hugging Face leaderboard based on MCQA built from non-textual data found in ISO documents, and (c) LLMFeatureSelector, an LLM-based feature selection scikit-learn pipeline. The software is available at https://github.com/IBM/FailureSensorIQ.
Figures & tables
| Method/Model | 4-Mav-17B-128E | 4-scout-17b-16e | 3-405b | 3.3-70b | 3.1-8b |
| Direct Prompt | 55.83 | 53.96 | 51.26 | 41.69 | 40.04 |
| COT@Inductive | 56.88 | 54.22 | 53.17 | 49.46 | 40.27 |
| COT@Expert | 56.96 | 53.06 | 55.38 | 50.96 | 42.11 |
| COT@Standard | 57.29 | 52.53 | 55.57 | 51.18 | 45.74 |
| Plan@Solve | 56.47 | 55.46 | 54.89 | 50.36 | 46.46 |
| Average | 56.90 | 53.82 | 54.75 | 50.49 | 43.65 |
| Asset | Task: (Failure or | Top-5 recommended features | Max | ||||
| Energy Pred.) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Corr. | |
| Electrical Transf. | Magnetic Oil Gauge | 7.83 | 12.52 | 20.33 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 35.88 |
| Air Compressor | Bearings | 0.07 | 1.94 | 4.51 | 2.75 | 0.01 | 36.03 |
| Air Compressor | Water Pump | 15.28 | 21.38 | 13.62 | 15.87 | 14.52 | 21.38 |
| Air Compressor | Radiator | 31.85 | 31.83 | 31.78 | 86.88 | 25.16 | 86.88 |
| Air Compressor | Valve | 1.66 | 52.64 | 14.42 | 1.43 | 0.30 | 52.64 |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Task | Question Template |
| FM2Sensor-Sel. | For {asset_class} , if a failure event {failure_mode} occurs, which sensors out of the choices are the most relevant regarding the occurrence of the failure event? |
| FM2Sensor-El. | For {asset_class} , if a failure event {failure_mode} occurs, which sensors out of the choices are not relevant regarding the occurrence of the failure event? |
| Sensor2FM-Sel. | In the context of {asset_class} , which failure modes are the most relevant when {sensor} shows abnormal readings? |
| Sensor2FM-El. | In the context of {asset_class} , which failure events are not relevant when the sensor {sensor} shows an abnormal reading? |
| Model | Acc. Total | Acc. Sel. | Acc El. | Acc Perturb. | Acc. Consist. |
| o1 | 60.40 | 61.06 | 67.89 | 49.76 | 44.17 |
| o3-mini | 58.46 | 56.81 | 69.84 | 53.28 | 47.47 |
| llama-4-mav.-17b-128e | 55.83 | 44.47 | 71.90 | 49.12 | 40.83 |
| llama-4-scout-17b-16e | 53.96 | 44.47 | 63.53 | 29.36 | 24.11 |
| gpt-4.1 | 53.47 | 56.38 | 59.17 | 45.74 | 39.93 |
| o1-preview | 52.31 | 49.57 | 62.5 | 47.51 | 40.68 |
| Model | Electric Motor | Steam Turbine | Aero Gas Turbine | Industr. Gas Turbine | Pump | Compressor |
| o1 | 68.8 | 47.95 | 50.89 | 70.83 | 58.55 | 56.36 |
| o3-mini | 63.25 | 49.71 | 51.49 | 68.33 | 52.63 | 55.45 |
| llama-4-maverick-17b-128e | 66.24 | 47.37 | 47.32 | 69.17 | 55.26 | 52.27 |
| llama-4-scout-17b-16e | 60.26 | 40.94 | 47.02 | 67.5 | 50.0 | 46.36 |
| gpt-4.1 | 58.12 | 43.27 | 43.75 | 69.17 | 52.63 | 46.36 |
| o1-preview | 65.38 | 43.86 | 42.56 | 62.92 | 50.0 | 46.82 |
| Model | Recipr. Intern. Comb. Engine | Electric Generator | Fan | Power Transformer |
| o1 | 65.48 | 70.94 | 58.0 | 57.35 |
| o3-mini | 63.39 | 65.81 | 61.0 | 54.78 |
| llama-4-maverick-17b-128e | 61.01 | 62.39 | 56.5 | 48.71 |
| llama-4-scout-17b-16e | 66.96 | 59.4 | 60.5 | 45.04 |
| gpt-4.1 | 61.01 | 58.12 | 57.0 | 48.9 |
| o1-preview | 58.33 | 62.82 | 53.5 | 44.85 |
| CoT Stype | Trigger Statement |
| Standard | Let me think step by step |
| Expert | Let me think step by step as a reliability engineer |
| Inductive | Let’s use step by step inductive reasoning, given the domain specific nature of the question |
| Plan-Solve | Trigger Statement |
| prompt-3 | Let’s first prepare relevant information and make a plan. Then, let’s answer the question step by step (pay attention to commonsense and logical coherence). |