Towards a more realistic evaluation of machine learning models for bearing fault diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable detection of bearing faults is essential for maintaining the safety and operational efficiency of rotating machinery. While recent advances in machine learning (ML), particularly deep learning, have shown strong performance in controlled settings, many studies fail to generalize to real-world applications due to methodological flaws, most notably data leakage. This paper investigates the issue of data leakage in vibration-based bearing fault diagnosis and its impact on model evaluation. We demonstrate that common dataset partitioning strategies, such as segment-wise and condition-wise splits, introduce spurious correlations that inflate performance metrics. To address this, we propose a rigorous, leakage-free evaluation methodology centered on bearing-wise data partitioning, ensuring no overlap between the physical components used for training and testing. Additionally, we reformulate the classification task as a multi-label problem, enabling the detection of co-occurring fault types and the use of prevalence-independent metrics based on the ROC curve. Beyond preventing leakage, we also examine the effect of dataset diversity on generalization, showing that the number of unique training bearings is a decisive factor for achieving robust performance. We evaluate our methodology on four widely adopted datasets: Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), Paderborn University (PU), University of Ottawa (UORED-VAFCLS) and Hanoi University of Science and Technology (HUST bearing). This study highlights the importance of leakage-aware evaluation protocols and provides practical guidelines for dataset partitioning, model selection, and validation, fostering the development of more trustworthy ML systems for industrial fault diagnosis applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".