2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2018.10.109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data augmentation in fault diagnosis based on the Wasserstein generative adversarial network with gradient penalty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
56
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 200 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, previous studies have used many different data augmentation methods to solve this problem, such as using a synthetic over-sampling method to generate new samples by interpolating real samples, transforming the available data to generate additional data variants, or using different signal processing techniques to add Gaussian noise, signal translation, amplitude shifting, and time stretching [20], [21]. While the results suggest that deep learning-based fault diagnosis methods can largely benefit from an expanded dataset with more generated labeled instances, but the new samples are generally similar to the real samples and lack sufficient diversity of data, so improvement in model generalization are limited [21][22][23]. In addition, generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been recently used to learn the distributions of the machinery vibration data and generate additional realistic fake samples to expand the training dataset, despite the improved testing performance, the main drawback of GANs-based bearing fault diagnostics is its reliance on a relatively large model consisting of multiple GANs for the minority classes [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, previous studies have used many different data augmentation methods to solve this problem, such as using a synthetic over-sampling method to generate new samples by interpolating real samples, transforming the available data to generate additional data variants, or using different signal processing techniques to add Gaussian noise, signal translation, amplitude shifting, and time stretching [20], [21]. While the results suggest that deep learning-based fault diagnosis methods can largely benefit from an expanded dataset with more generated labeled instances, but the new samples are generally similar to the real samples and lack sufficient diversity of data, so improvement in model generalization are limited [21][22][23]. In addition, generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been recently used to learn the distributions of the machinery vibration data and generate additional realistic fake samples to expand the training dataset, despite the improved testing performance, the main drawback of GANs-based bearing fault diagnostics is its reliance on a relatively large model consisting of multiple GANs for the minority classes [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DCGAN [17] and bidirectional generative adversarial networks (BiGAN) [18]). This yielded a set of techniques associated with the disciplines of GAN-based works for intelligent fault diagnosis: machinery and electronic systems, including GAN with Adaboost classifier [19], Wasserstein GAN (WGAN) with gradient penalty [20], Auxiliary Classifier GAN [21], GAN network for cross-domain fault diagnosis problems [22], [23], research on the loss of GAN [24] and WGAN with stacked auto-encoders [25]. Nevertheless, considering the fact that multiple fault types and extreme high imbalanced ratios (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to enhance model stability and improve the quality of generated samples, Gao et al [22] proposed a data augmentation approach based on Wasserstein generative adversarial network with gradient penalty (WGAN-GP), which redesigned the loss function of WGAN [23]. Shao et al [24] employed one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) to construct an auxiliary classifier GAN (ACGAN) for data augmentation, where additional label information was conducive to generating the corresponding fault samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%