mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Generating Bearing Vibration Signals at User-Specified Fault Probabilities Using PR-GAN and Counterfactual Methods

arXiv 2607.19455 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In bearing vibration datasets, most samples receive predicted fault probabilities close to 0 or 1, while samples with intermediate (gray-zone) probabilities are rare. Such borderline samples are important because they reflect conditions in which maintenance decisions may require additional inspection or a conservative response and are useful for studying decision boundaries. To address this scarcity, this paper proposes and compares two approaches that generate vibration signals whose predicted fault probability matches a target probability of 0.25, 0.50, or 0.75. We use the average output of a heterogeneous ensemble classifier with different architectures and random initializations as a fixed, gradient-accessible probability oracle. The first, training-based approach, Probability-Regularized Generative Adversarial Network (PR-GAN), extends Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Network with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP) and edits a real signal through a residual generator while pushing the classifier output toward the target probability. The second is a training-free, per-sample Wachter-style counterfactual (CF) procedure that directly optimizes each input signal to reach the target probability while remaining close to the source signal. We evaluate both methods on the Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) and Paderborn bearing datasets using mean absolute target-probability error, time-domain total variation, and frequency-domain log power spectral density (log-PSD) differences. Across all settings, CF reaches the target with a mean absolute probability error of 0.005-0.008 and a within-tolerance success rate of 1.000 on retained samples, whereas PR-GAN's mean error is 0.046-0.059 with success rates between 0.501 and 0.680. CF therefore steers the probability more reliably and requires smaller average L1 changes, whereas PR-GAN has a lower reported runtime in most settings.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

9 of 36 references.

References · 9

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  2. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  3. 2017Improved Training of Wasserstein GANscited by 2,235
  4. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
  5. 2018Regularisation of Neural Networks by Enforcing Lipschitz Continuitycited by 314
  6. 2013Generalized Denoising Auto-Encoders as Generative Modelscited by 113
  7. 2017The Relative Performance of Ensemble Methods with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classificationcited by 50
  8. 2022Synthesizing Rolling Bearing Fault Samples in New Conditions: A framework based on a modified CGANcited by 8
  9. 2024Evaluating deep learning models for fault diagnosis of a rotating machinery with epistemic and aleatoric uncertaintycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.