Electromagnetic Interference Patterns and Measurement Accuracy in Smart Factory Sensors

Authors

  • Honoka Aoki Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan Author
  • Gijs De Vries Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Author
  • Ryo Honda Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan Author

Keywords:

Smart Factories, Electromagnetic Interference, Sensor Accuracy, Industrial Automation, Cyber-Physical Systems

Abstract

The transition toward Industry 4.0 has established smart factories as highly automated, data-driven environments where cyber-physical systems operate in continuous synchronization. At the foundation of these systems are smart sensors, which are expected to deliver high-fidelity measurements to facilitate real-time decision-making, predictive maintenance, and autonomous process control. However, modern industrial environments are characterized by dense arrays of heavy electrical machinery, variable frequency drives, and high-voltage power lines, all of which generate complex electromagnetic interference patterns. This study investigates the direct correlation between specific electromagnetic interference profiles and the resulting degradation in measurement accuracy across industrial sensor networks. By establishing a controlled, full-scale smart factory testbed, we systematically exposed a representative suite of temperature, pressure, and vibration sensors to synthesized and real-world radiated and conducted electromagnetic noise. The research methodology utilized high-frequency data acquisition systems to capture instantaneous signal deviations and long-term measurement drifts. Our findings demonstrate that distinct interference patterns yield highly specific error signatures, challenging the conventional assumption that electromagnetic noise merely induces uniform random variance in sensor outputs. The empirical evidence suggests that specific harmonic frequencies couple with sensor internal analog-to-digital conversion stages, leading to deterministic measurement offsets. These results provide a critical foundation for developing advanced, hardware-agnostic interference mitigation algorithms and robust sensor validation protocols.

References

1. Sun, K.; Yang, J.; Li, J.; Yang, B.; Ding, S. Proximal Policy Optimization-Based Hierarchical Decision-Making Mechanism for Resource Allocation Optimization in UAV Networks. Electronics 2025, 14, 747.

2. Yang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Chen, T.; Tong, Y. Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2019, 10, 1–19.

3. Molotch, H. The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. Am. J. Sociol. 1976, 82, 309–332.

4. Goel, A.; Masurkar, S.; Pathade, G.R. An Overview of Digital Transformation and Environmental Sustainability: Threats, Opportunities, and Solutions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11079.

5. Kim, J.; Fram, M.S. Profiles of choice: Parents’ patterns of priority in child care decision-making. Early Child. Res. Q. 2009, 24, 77–91.

6. Ghomri, B.I.-D.; Bendimerad, M.Y.; Bendimerad, F.T. DRL-Driven Optimization for Energy Efficiency and Fairness in NOMA-UAV Networks. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2024, 28, 1048–1052.

7. Chaudhary, S.; Budhiraja, I.; Chaudhary, R.; Garg, S.; Choi, B.J.; Alrashoud, M. Proximal Policy Optimization Based Sum Rate Maximization Scheme for STAR-RIS-Assisted Vehicular Networks Underlaying UAV. Alex. Eng. J. 2025, 118, 700–710.

8. Katz-Sidlow, R.J.; Lindenbaum, Y.; Sidlow, R. Residents’ attitudes toward a smartphone policy for inpatient attending rounds. J. Hosp. Med. 2013, 8, 541–542.

9. Khanna, S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrating the scope of scholarly publishing: A modest step in a vast decolonization process. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(4), 912–930.

10. Kettl, D.F. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.

11. Statista. 5G—Statistics & Facts. 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/3447/5g/?srsltid=AfmBOoqwwLz1PwaNuxcOGXpe4chSvyttaEnxiMFzNriHlbev7lnecxh- (accessed on 24 June 2026).

12. Zheng, M.; Zhang, J.; Zhan, C.; Ren, X.; Lü, S. Proximal Policy Optimization with Reward-Based Prioritization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2025, 283, 127659.

13. Barth, M.; Boriboonsomsin, K. Real-world Carbon Dioxideimpacts of traffic congestion. Transp. Res. Rec. 2008, 2058, 163–171.

14. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211.

15. Aung, P.S.; Nguyen, L.X.; Tun, Y.K.; Han, Z.; Hong, C.S. Aerial STAR-RIS Empowered MEC: A DRL Approach for Energy Minimization. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2024, 13, 1409–1413.

16. Huang, C.; Yi, H.; Chen, T.; Xu, X.; Chen, S. Networked environmental governance: Formal and informal collaborative networks in local China. Policy Stud. 2022, 43, 403–421.

17. Cho, Y.J.; Wang, J.; Joshi, G. Client Selection in Federated Learning: Convergence Analysis and Power-of-Choice Selection Strategies. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.01243.

18. Kim, K.M. A study on the promotional activities and information provision by support centers for childcare: Focused on the Years 2019–2023. J. Converg. Cult. Technol. 2024, 10, 357–365.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-31

Issue

Section

Articles