aiqbench analysis
This study challenges inflated accuracy claims in vibration sensor diagnostics by adopting a rigorous held-out-bearing protocol that prevents data leakage between training and test sets. The research demonstrates that for physical sensing tasks, the choice of input representation—specifically order tracking over raw frequency domains—is more critical than the alignment method itself for enabling effective domain adaptation. Consequently, Fourier Neural Operators significantly outperform standard convolutional networks when fault signatures shift with operating speed, provided the data is preprocessed to align faults with fixed shaft orders.
When Does Domain Adaptation Help on Physical Vibration Sensors? A Held-Out-Bearing Study of Neural-Operator and Convolutional Models
arXiv:2609.31639v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Diagnosing rolling-element bearing faults from vibration is a canonical physical-sensing task and a widely used benchmark for domain adaptation under operating-condition shift. Accuracies above 99 percent are commonly reported, but under evaluation splits that place the same physical bearing in both training and test. We revisit the task under a held-out-bearing protocol, assigning every bearing unit entirely to either the training or the test set, and find that source-only transfer is far weaker than such numbers suggest: on a change of shaft speed it reaches only $0.36$, against a target-supervised ceiling of 0.97. We then study what governs transfer. Treating computed order tracking, a shaft-angle resampling that places fault frequencies at fixed shaft orders independent of running speed, as a controlled change of representation, we find that a Fourier Neural Operator raises source-only transfer from $0.36$ to $0.61$ on the speed shift, where the fault peaks move, while a convolutional network of matched feature dimension stays near chance in both representations. The representation also decides whether unsupervised alignment can work: with the same normalized RBF-MMD loss and no target labels, the operator reaches 0.71 in the frequency domain but 0.95 in the order domain, within 0.02 of the target-supervised ceiling and above $0.86$ on every held-out bearing fold. Once the representation is right, a small label budget adds little. These results indicate that, for this task, the input representation rather than the alignment method decides whether adaptation helps. A second dataset, whose held-out units are fault diameters rather than bearings, shows that the same protocol exposes failures that even a target-supervised model cannot avoid.
Title:When Does Domain Adaptation Help on Physical Vibration Sensors? A Held-Out-Bearing Study of Neural-Operator and Convolutional Models
Abstract:Diagnosing rolling-element bearing faults from vibration is a canonical physical-sensing task and a widely used benchmark for domain adaptation under operating-condition shift. Accuracies above 99 percent are commonly reported, but under evaluation splits that place the same physical bearing in both training and test. We revisit the task under a held-out-bearing protocol, assigning every bearing unit entirely to either the training or the test set, and find that source-only transfer is far weaker than such numbers suggest: on a change of shaft speed it reaches only $0.36$, against a target-supervised ceiling of 0.97. We then study what governs transfer. Treating computed order tracking, a shaft-angle resampling that places fault frequencies at fixed shaft orders independent of running speed, as a controlled change of representation, we find that a Fourier Neural Operator raises source-only transfer from $0.36$ to $0.61$ on the speed shift, where the fault peaks move, while a convolutional network of matched feature dimension stays near chance in both representations. The representation also decides whether unsupervised alignment can work: with the same normalized RBF-MMD loss and no target labels, the operator reaches 0.71 in the frequency domain but 0.95 in the order domain, within 0.02 of the target-supervised ceiling and above $0.86$ on every held-out bearing fold. Once the representation is right, a small label budget adds little. These results indicate that, for this task, the input representation rather than the alignment method decides whether adaptation helps. A second dataset, whose held-out units are fault diameters rather than bearings, shows that the same protocol exposes failures that even a target-supervised model cannot avoid.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.31639 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.31639v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31639 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 376 words
