Evaluating deep learning models for fault diagnosis of a rotating machinery with epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty
About
Uncertainty-aware deep learning (DL) models recently gained attention in fault diagnosis as a way to promote the reliable detection of faults when out-of-distribution (OOD) data arise from unseen faults (epistemic uncertainty) or the presence of noise (aleatoric uncertainty). In this paper, we present the first comprehensive comparative study of state-of-the-art uncertainty-aware DL architectures for fault diagnosis in rotating machinery, where different scenarios affected by epistemic uncertainty and different types of aleatoric uncertainty are investigated. The selected architectures include sampling by dropout, Bayesian neural networks, and deep ensembles. Moreover, to distinguish between in-distribution and OOD data in the different scenarios two uncertainty thresholds, one of which is introduced in this paper, are alternatively applied. Our empirical findings offer guidance to practitioners and researchers who have to deploy real-world uncertainty-aware fault diagnosis systems. In particular, they reveal that, in the presence of epistemic uncertainty, all DL models are capable of effectively detecting, on average, a substantial portion of OOD data across all the scenarios. However, deep ensemble models show superior performance, independently of the uncertainty threshold used for discrimination. In the presence of aleatoric uncertainty, the noise level plays an important role. Specifically, low noise levels hinder the models' ability to effectively detect OOD data. Even in this case, however, deep ensemble models exhibit a milder degradation in performance, dominating the others. These achievements, combined with their shorter inference time, make deep ensemble architectures the preferred choice.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Gaussian Noise (test) | Detection Acc90.1 | 23 | |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Weilbul noise (test) | OOD Detection Accuracy (UT)100 | 12 | |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Impulse noise (test) | OOD Score (UT)87.4 | 12 | |
| Out-of-Distribution Detection | Rayleigh noise (test) | OOD Detection Rate (UT)100 | 12 | |
| OOD Detection | CWRU Scenario No.1 (test) | OOD Uncertainty Score95.8 | 8 | |
| OOD Detection | Weibull noise, Strong level (test) | OOD Detection UT97.6 | 4 | |
| OOD Detection | Weibull noise Medium level (test) | OOD Detection Score (UT)67.1 | 4 | |
| OOD Detection | Weibull noise, Slight level (test) | OOD Detection UT51.4 | 4 | |
| OOD Detection | Impulse noise Strong level (test) | OOD Detection UT79.9 | 4 | |
| OOD Detection | Impulse noise, Medium level (test) | OOD Detection Score (OOD -> UT)71.7 | 4 |