IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO.
12, DECEMBER 2022
LM-CNN: A Cloud-Edge Collaborative Method
for Adaptive Fault Diagnosis With Label
Sampling Space Enlarging
Lei Ren , Member, IEEE, Zidi Jia , Graduate Student Member, IEEE, Tao Wang ,
Yehan Ma , Member, IEEE, and Lihui Wang
Abstract—In cloud manufacturing systems, fault diag-
nosis is essential for ensuring stable manufacturing pro-
cesses. The most crucial performance indicators of fault
diagnosis models are generalization and accuracy. An ur-
gent problem is the lack and imbalance of fault data. To
address this issue, in this article, most of existing ap-
proaches demand the label of faults as a priori knowledge
and require extensive target fault data. These approaches
may also ignore the heterogeneity of various equipment.
We propose a cloud-edge collaborative method for adap-
tive fault diagnosis with label sampling space enlarging,
named label-split multiple-inputs convolutional neural net-
work, in cloud manufacturing. First, a multiattribute co-
operative representation-based fault label sampling space
enlarging approach is proposed to extend the variety of
diagnosable faults. Besides, a multi-input multi-output data
augmentation method with label-coupling weighted sam-
pling is developed. In addition, a cloud-edge collaborative
adaptation approach for fault diagnosis for scene-specific
equipment in cloud manufacturing system is proposed. Ex-
periments demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of
our method.
Index Terms—Cloud-edge collaboration, cloud manufac-
turing system, fault diagnosis, label-split multiple-inputs
convolutional neural network (LM-CNN).
I. INTRODUCTION
HE booming development of cloud computing, Internet of
T Things (IoT), and other technologies has led to profound
Manuscript received 10 May 2022; accepted 28 May 2022. Date of
publication 8 June 2022; date of current version 30 September 2022.
This work was supported by The National Key Research and Develop-
ment Program of China under Grant 2020AAA0109202 and the NSFC
(National Natural Science Foundation of China)under Project 92167108
and Project 62173023. Paper no. TII-22-2020. (Corresponding authors:
Lei Ren; Zidi Jia.)
Lei Ren, Zidi Jia, and Tao Wang are with the School of Au-
tomation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Bei-
jing 100191, China (e-mail: renlei@buaa.edu.cn; jiazidi@buaa.edu.cn;
iamownt@buaa.edu.cn).
Yehan Ma is with the School of Electronic Information and Electrical
Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
(e-mail: yehanma@sjtu.edu.cn).
Lihui Wang is with the Department of Production Engineering, KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: lihui.
wang@iip.kth.se).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2022.3180389.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TII.2022.3180389
1551-3203 © 2022 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9057
changes in the production and operation mode of the manufac-
turing industry. Cloud resources have been applied to all stages
of manufacturing in depth. A new manufacturing paradigm has
been spawned, namely cloud manufacturing (CMfg) [1], driving
the development and transformation of today’s manufacturing
industry.
As the most important manufacturing resource in CMfg sys-
tem, manufacturing equipment must operate stably and continu-
ously. Predictive maintenance of complex equipment is particu-
larly crucial since equipment failures may bring production pro-
cesses to a halt and pose significant safety risks [2]. As an essen-
tial part of predictive maintenance, fault diagnosis plays an im-
portant role in engineering systems [3], such as generating sets,
chemical equipment and precision machine tools, which require
extremely high reliability and safety for efficient operation. It is
critical to detect and identify any type of potential anomalies and
faults soonest, implement fault-tolerant operations to minimize
performance degradation and avoid hazardous situations [4].
Due to the distributed heterogeneous integration, on-demand
dynamic architecture, collaborative interoperability, and high
scalability of CMfg system [5], the equipment fault diagnosis
system in CMfg needs to be more integrated, low-cost, and
high-efficiency.
CMfg systems connect massive manufacturing equipment in
the industrial Internet of Things (IIoTs) [6]. Monitoring the
equipment generates amounts of industrial data [7], which con-
tain massive industrial elements for equipment fault diagnosis.
Due to the development of technologies such as Big Data and
artificial intelligence (AI), data-driven equipment health indica-
tor prediction methods have been extensively studied and are
gradually becoming the mainstream methods [8], [9]. For in-
stance, Ren et al. [10] proposed a convolutional deep belief net-
work (CDBN) autonomously selecting sensitive features. Wang
et al. [11] proposed a multiattention 1-D convolutional neural
network (MA1DCNN) to enhance the feature grasping of fault
pulses. Guo et al. [12] proposed a multitask convolutional neural
network with multidomain feature fusion for fault diagnosis
and localization. It is evident that industry-specific deep learn-
ing methods have become the trend to address fault diagnosis
issues.
Meanwhile, the distributed and integrated characteristics
of CMfg systems also provide new solutions paradigms for
 9058
industrial equipment fault diagnosis [13], [14]. The distributed
cloud-edge-based industrial data analysis model has become
the development trend and received extensive interests from
academia and industry [15]. Cloud-edge collaborative solutions
can reduce latency and improve scalability [16], [17]. A large
number of relevant studies have been made. For instance, Kaur
et al. [18] proposed a software-defined networking-based edge-
cloud interaction approach to handle streaming Big Data in
IIoT environments. Tang et al. [19] propose a cloud-assisted
and edge-decision manufacturing architecture that encompasses
both the cloud and the production edge, providing data access
and autonomous decision-making capabilities. Li et al. [20]
proposed an orchestration scheme that integrates edge-centric
computing and content-centric networking to improve the ser-
vice capabilities of 5G mobile networks.
Though fault diagnosis in CMfg system is extensively re-
searched, numerous pressing issues remain to be addressed.
First, as industrial processes and industrial equipment structures
become increasingly complex, many unknown conditions will
inevitably occur [21]. Historical data may be unavailable for
their quantitative analysis. Thus, these unknown conditions are
often not predictable. However, these conditions may lead to
many immeasurable consequences without prompt handling.
Second, as IIoT Big Data in CMfg systems is generated on a
large scale without interruption, the data collected from various
equipment may be unbalanced [22]. The sample amounts of
different faults may vary greatly, and the distribution of the
collected historical data may not match its actual distribution. It
greatly limits the accuracy of fault diagnosis models [23]. Third,
even collaborative training of fault diagnosis models with data
collected from various edges is a feasible and effective method,
the working conditions of these scenarios may be diverse, re-
sulting in poor scenario adaptation of the trained models and
possibly unnecessary costs. These problems make it difficult for
general methods to predict effectively.
In CMfg system, industrial data from various edges can be
fused with cloud-edge techniques to jointly train fault diagnosis
models in the cloud [24]. With these data collected across
scenes, a more comprehensive and accurate fault diagnosis
system can be constructed. We intend to address the data-related
issues with two aspects: Interdata correlation and interlabel
correlation. Conventional deep learning-based fault diagnosis
methods generally just make a simple classifier to distinguish
all known faults. It is clearly not an ideal way of diagnosis.
Those monitoring signals of similar faults (e.g., faults of the
same diameter or location) may have similar characteristics,
making it much more difficult to classify two faults with similar
labels than to distinguish two faults with completely disparate
labels. However, data from faults with highly similar labels can
complement each other and play sample-enhancing roles. Be-
sides, with the coupling and orthogonality of various attributes
among labels, the label sampling space can be enlarged. To solve
these issues, we propose a cloud-edge collaborative adaptive
fault diagnosis method, label-split multiple-inputs convolutional
neural network (LM-CNN). The main contributions are illus-
trated as follows. First, a fault label sampling space enlarging
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2022
method with label-splitting is proposed. The labels of faults
are deconstructed into sublabels with various attributes. These
sublabels are analyzed utilizing a multitask learning approach
to redefine the faults. The sublabels can also be adopted to
characterize some unknown faults that lack data and make pre-
dictive diagnosis. Second, we develop a label coupling weighted
sampling-based multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) data
augmentation method and a compatible neural network struc-
ture. The data from each edge are resampled and aggregated
to eliminate the bias of the sample distribution and utilized
to capture the variability and correlation among each fault.
Third, a cloud-edge collaborative scene-specific fault diagnosis
adapting approach is proposed. The global fault diagnosis model
in the cloud is further distilled for scene-specific and real-time
prediction of each edge.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II
presents the related works. A fault diagnosis method with label
sampling space enlarging is presented in Section III. The cloud-
edge collaborative framework of the adaptive fault diagnosis
model is presented in Section IV. In Section V, we verify
the effectiveness of the proposed method through experiments
on bearing fault diagnosis. Finally, Section VI concludes this
article.
II. RELATED WORKS
This section briefly reviews the related works about fault diag-
nosis for faults lacking of data and cloud-edge collaborative fault
diagnosis methods. We subsequently analyzed several problems
of existing fault diagnosis methods.
A. Adaptive Fault Diagnosis for Faults Lacking of Data
With the rapid development of modern industrial systems, the
complexity of equipment is constantly increasing. The reliable
operation of equipment is the key to industrial manufacturing.
Therefore, predictive maintenance of equipment, especially fault
diagnosis, receives significant interest. However, due to the
dynamic nature of the production tasks and status of industrial
equipment, the potential safety hazards of the equipment are
uncertain and constantly changing. With the increasing com-
plexity of industrial equipment and industrial processes, many
unknown faults lack historical data. Besides, in an industrial
scenario, no or few data are available for faults that occur in daily
process operations. Since many faults may pose a significant
safety hazard, production equipment will mostly not be allowed
to run to faults and collect samples to train a fault diagnosis
system [25]. This means that obtaining sufficient fault samples
is time-consuming and expensive.
To solve the problem of data imbalance or a lacking of fault
data, it is usually needed to augment the data. A common
approach is to adopted generative models to generate fault data.
For instance, Wu et al. [26] used a locally weighted minority
oversampling strategy to identify information from a small
number of fault samples and generated fault samples using
an EM-based interpolation algorithm. Liu et al. [27] propose
 REN et al.: LM-CNN: A CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS
a deep feature-augmented generative adversarial network to
improve the performance of imbalanced fault diagnosis. An-
other acceptable approach is to utilize easily available historical
fault data to construct fault diagnosis models to be applied
to those faults for which data is lacking [28]. Usually such
issues are solved by transfer learning, meta-learning or domain
adaptation methods. For instance, Feng and Zhao [29] utilized
zero-shot learning to describe the fault classes and used super-
vised principal component analysis to extract features associated
with the attributes. Lu et al. [30] utilized the sparse autoen-
coder for the deep domain adaptation of training and target
faults.
However, these methods also demand the label of target faults
as a priori knowledge or require extensive target fault data.
Thus, these methods can only do simple knowledge transfer
between known faults, and cannot make predictions for unknown
faults. Therefore, an adaptive fault diagnosis method, which
can make predictions for unknown faults automatically, is of
application. We attempt to make predictions for faults that lack
samples by enlarging the sampling space of fault labels. By
analyzing known faults, a larger label space is constructed.
The attributes in the labels are deconstructed, and the char-
acteristics of the faults are analyzed from the perspective of
various conjunctive attributes. Thus, the constructed fault di-
agnosis model can diagnose far more fault classes than known
faults.
B. Cloud-Edge Collaborative Fault Diagnosis
CMfg systems require a distributed and integrated fault di-
agnosis architecture, so cloud-edge collaboration technologies
are needed to empower that architecture. Cloud computing is
capable of handling huge amounts of complex data for resource
sharing and computing. Edge computing resources have low
transmission latency, and can be configured for real-time pro-
cessing of IIoT edge-specific scenarios.
Since cloud-edge collaboration builds a flexible and efficient
computing architecture for cloud manufacturing [31], it has
been extensively applied in the field of industrial equipment
fault diagnosis. This cloud-edge approach to fault diagnosis
can improve the training speed and agility of the model [32].
Data from multiple edges can also be fused to collaboratively
train models [33]. However, most existing cloud-edge-based
approaches do not account for the relevance and heterogeneity
of each edge scenario concurrently. Most cloud-edge-based IIoT
Big Data analytics approaches are applied for one scenario
itself or for all edge scenarios indiscriminately. As a result,
the generalizability and specificity of these Big Data analytics
models are usually not satisfied simultaneously.
It is a worthwhile research issue to structure a fault diagnosis
architecture that is generalizable and applicable to all edge sce-
narios. This consists of two main issues. One is to systematically
integrate industrial data from each edge and use it to frame a
global fault diagnosis model. The second is to adapt the global
fault diagnosis model to the scenario adaptive model for the
specific conditions of each edge.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9059
III. LABEL-SPLIT MULTIPLE-INPUTS CONVOLUTIONAL
NEURAL NETWORK-BASED FAULT DIAGNOSIS
In this section, our proposed model, LM-CNN, of the diagno-
sis for faults without samples is demonstrated. It is inconvenient
to diagnose these faults by traditional data-driven methods. The
proposed method describes various attributes (location, size,
load, etc.) of each fault by splitting the label of each fault into
multiple sublabels and training the diagnostic model for each
sublabel separately.
A. Multiattribute Label-Splitting Based Label Sampling
Space Enlarging
The most neural network can diagnose the fault well with
high-quality historical data. However, lacking data is a common
problem for real industrial situation. A prerequisite for accurate
predictions of specific faults is the availability of historical
data for such faults. We are to investigate a method to make
relatively reliable predictions for certain faults even without
historical data. Thus, the fault label sampling space needs to be
enlarged. It is our concept of solution to obtain the knowledge
of unknown faults by extracting the features of known faults.
The industrial equipment fault data often contain massive types
of information, and some information exists in various faults
simultaneously. This leads to relevancies among these faults.
The training process of a diagnostic model for a certain fault
can adopt samples from others. For example, vibration signal of
two rolling bearing faults with the same location but different
diameters can be adopted to complement each other’s training
set.
Taking rolling bearing as an example, the fault diagnosis
system needs to determine the location, diameter, and load of
the faulty bearing. Assume that the label of a fault can be
described as a fault of the kth diameter (k = 1, . . . , K) at the jth
location (j = 1, . . . , J) under load i (i = 1, . . . , I). Traditional
fault classification methods often train discriminators for M
classification (M is the number of the faults, M ≤ I ∗ J ∗ K),
which prevents similar labels from being utilized by the model.
Meanwhile, misdiagnosis of faults often occurs between two
faults with similar labels due to the highly similar characteristics
of these two faults. That is, those faults with similar operating
conditions or similar fault types may not be well distinguished.
We call those faults whose labels are similar to the target fault
“Labeled Similar Faults (LSF)” and call the similar attributes as
sub-labels, as shown in Fig. 1.
With the assistance of the LSFs, the probability of such
misdiagnosis can be decreased. The historical data of a fault’s
LSFs can be used as enhanced data for the diagnostic model of
the fault. We propose a method to enlarge label sampling space
by describing each sublabel. In doing so, some faults lacking of
data can be predicted.
The data distributions corresponding to the sublabels of these
unknown faults can be captured by analyzing their LSFs, since
the sublabel of the target fault is the same as that of its LSFs’. If
various attributes of a fault can be characterized by its LSFs, it is
not essential to maintain massive amounts of this class of data.
 9060
Fig. 1. Faults with the split labels. The relationship between the target
fault and its LSFs can be visualized in the figure. Subsequent operations
can be performed for the target fault and its LSFs.
Of course, this approach is feasible provided that the number of
the LSFs of such fault is large enough. Each sublabel contains
two or more classes within it, regardless of how the sublabels are
divided. This ensures that the mining of the differences among
the LSFs and the other faults is sufficient to qualitatively describe
the characteristic of this fault.
The label in this case can be split into three sublabels: Load,
diameter, and position. Diagnostic modeling separately obtains a
new submodel for each sublabel. With these diagnostic models,
results of I ∗ J ∗ K fusions are obtained to describe the faults.
With the splitting, the training set for each class of each sublabel
consists of multiple origin classes, significantly increasing the
sample richness. Besides, the LSFs are no longer a distraction
for the classification task as the classification task is replaced
with simpler tasks.
The correct rate of prediction after label-split is higher than the
original one, due to the coupling between sublabels. Assume that
for the prediction of faults, p(T ) > p(LSFi ) > p(Oj ), where
p(T ) represents the probability of the target fault, and p(LSFi )
and p(Oj ) represent the probability of the ith LSF and the jth
other fault, respectively. Although the model’s prediction of an
LSF may be biased, its impact can still be reduced by predicting
the remaining LSFs. For S sublabels, the prediction function for
the bearing fault in the example can be restructured to
S
 the data imbalance practice.
p̂θ (T |x) = pθ (Ls |x) ≥ pθ (L1 , . . . , LS |x).
s=1
B. Data Augmentation With Resampling and
“ensembled” CNN Fault Diagnosis Model
In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNN), due
to their superior ability to capture local features of data, gained
many interests from academia and industry, and have become
one of the most widely studied and applied neural networks.
Besides, CNN has fewer parameters and is less computationally
intensive than attention-based mechanisms such as Transformer,
making them more suitable for industrial equipment health pre-
diction in industry. Causal convolution proposed for temporal is-
sues has been shown to be more applicable to temporal problems
than others. Therefore, CNN is considered as the base network.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2022
Fig. 2. Faults with the split labels.
A typical CNN consists of convolutional layers, pooling layers,
and fully connected layers. We utilize discrete 2-D convolution,
which is
s
 s

x (i, j) = K(m, n) ∗ x(i + m, j + n) (2)
m=−s n=−s
where x, x , and K are the input, output, and convolution
kernel of the convolutional layer. The network exploits residual
connections to avoid gradient vanishing and explosion.
For an input x, the output ŷ for a classification model is the
probability distribution pθ (ŷ|x), which undoubtedly brings un-
certainty to the prediction. In the case of the neural network with
MIMO configuration, assuming there are M faults, the network
receives M inputs simultaneously and provides M outputs [34],
where each output is the prediction of its corresponding input,
as shown in Fig. 2. For the M samples simultaneously fed to the
model, each one is sampled, probabilistically, from one of the M
classes of faults. The fault class is not fixed at each location. The
number of resampled samples can be an exponential multiple of
the original, so data aggregation is a data enhancement method.
Meanwhile, since it is a resampling method, it is not affected by
(1) This configuration of neural networks can deliver ensembles
“for free.” And with only a small increase in computation, dis-
crepancies among various faults can be captured [35]. With this
“ensemble” resampling method, the resampled data may better
match the characteristics of the application scenario than the
original dataset. The resampling strategy is that M sets of input
samples are aggregated together and resampled independently
from the training set.
The model consists of two parts: A CNN module and a per-
ceptron. To the best of our knowledge, MIMO-based data aug-
mentation methods have not been used in the field of industrial
equipment fault diagnosis. Thus, the CNN module is assigned
in a MIMO structure to extract the hidden local pattern. In
contrast, the perceptron is employed to classify the faults with the
captured pattern. The training process is modified concerning the
 REN et al.: LM-CNN: A CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS 9061

conventional neural network. M samples are stitched together for the MIMO network, the subnetworks corresponding to the
as a whole and fed into the neural network simultaneously. The missing faults are no longer fed with the target fault samples,
loss function is the negative natural logarithm of the predictions and the remaining faults maintain their original proportions, i.e.,
of the M sets, as shown below: the resampling probabilities are
 M 
 1
Nl
 N
−Nl
LM (θ) = E − log pθ (ym |x1 , . . . , xM ) . (3) ΦLSF = N φnl (1 − φno )
x1 ,y1 ∈X 1− φn
... m=1 n=1 nl =1 no =1
xM ,yM ∈X
N

At the time of evaluation, the input data is tiled M times, i.e., 1
ΦO = N (1 − φn ). (7)
x1 = x2 = · · · = xM . Since each input is the same, each output 1− φn
n=1 n=1
of the model can be used to predict the fault class independently.
In addition, the M outputs of the model can be “ensembled” Assuming that there are K faults with historical data and n
through a fully connected network to provide more accurate faults without historical data, to construct a more specific model
predictions. for the missing fault, it is feasible to train a model with K + n
inputs and K + n outputs.
M

pθ (ŷ|x) = αm pθ (ym |x1 , . . . , xM ). (4)
C. Multitask Network Adaptive Fine-Tuning
m=1

Though MIMO can improve robustness and reduces uncer-
tainty, there is no change in class specificity for the classification
task. In fact, since the MIMO structure can be considered as an
“ensembling,” the class-specific resampling method for “sub-
network” is obviously to be considered. If a subnetwork focuses
more on a specific fault, the ability of that subnetwork to describe
that fault is enhanced. Furthermore, from a macro perspective,
the whole network can explore both the specificity characteris-
tics of each fault and the similarities and discrepancies among
faults.
Considering this problem from a modeling perspective is
obviously costly and may lead to uncertainties. From another
perspective, since the input data of the MIMO network needs to
be resampled, the class specificity of the “subnetwork” can be
made by a resampling method.
The effect of sublabels can be considered when resampling.
Obviously, the respective subnetworks of interests, from highest
to lowest, are the target fault, its LSFs, and other faults. Assume
that the original label is split into N sublabels. For sublabel
n(n = 1, . . . , N ), it should be ensured that the target label is
sampled with probability ΦT > 0.5, i.e.,
N
 MLP is utilized in the pretraining model for fault classifi-
ΦT = φn > 0.5.
n=1
For the LSFs and the other faults, the sampling probabilities
ΦLSF and ΦO are
Nl
 N
−Nl
ΦLSF = φnl (1 − φno )
nl =1 no =1
N

ΦO = (1 − φn )
n=1
where Nl is the number of similar sublabels of the LSFs, and
As mentioned above, faults with similarly labels may be con-
fused in the classification model and contain massive fault infor-
mation due to their great similarity. But mining the similarities
and differences between LSFs requires complex neural network
structures. It may also cause mutual interference. Therefore,
a pretraining–finetuning training approach is considered. The
differences between faults are captured in pretraining; in fine-
tuning, the correlations between faults are exploited to capture
the differences within sublabels.
The fine-tuning stage is for classifying of sublabels, and
the labels are split before. The labels are split into sublabels
according to the conditions and the multiple attributes contained
within the faults, such as the type of the workpiece, the position
on the workpiece, the diameter of the fault, and the load of the
equipment, etc. Suppose there are N sublabels and each sublabel
can be divided into cn classes (n = 1, . . . , N ), then a total of
 N
n=1 cn faults can be fused with the split sublabels.
In the fine-tuning stage, a classifier is designed for each
sublabel (it is also feasible to fuse several sublabels into one),
using the pretrained model. In this phase, the structure of the
CNN layer is kept unchanged and only the structure of the MLP
layer is modified.
(5) cation. For the split sublabels, MLP instead fails to highlight
the local specificity of sublabels. Thus, a radial basis function
(RBF) neural network is considered. The RBF neural network
contains three layers, i.e., input layer, hidden, and output. The
input is projected nonlinearly to the hidden layer with RBFs.
Later, the hidden layer is mapped to the output layer with a fully
connected layer. The activation function of the radial basis can
be expressed as
(6) K  
1
R(x) = exp − 2  xk − ci 2 (8)
2σ
k=1

φnl represents the probability of the lth sublabel of the LSF.
For faults without samples, the data from their LSFs can
be utilized to form their training data. The faults are used as
independent fault category for training the model, and samples
of its LSFs are used as the training set for that fault. At this point,
where σ and ci are the parameters of the Gaussian kernel.
The calculation of the loss function also takes the class
specificity into account when training the model. The MIMO
model adopted in this manuscript has a total of M 2 outputs for
M faults, and the output Oij represents the possibility that the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9062
Fig. 3. Pretraining and fine-tuning model of our method.
input sample of the ith subnetwork is predicted to be the jth
fault (i, j = 1, . . . , M ). The total loss is defined as follows:
LM (θ) = E ξLTM (θ) + ηLLSF O
M (θ) + ζLM (θ)
x1 ,y1 ∈X
...
xM ,yM ∈X
where LT , LLSF , and LO represent the loss of the subnetworks
corresponding to the target fault, LSFs, and the other faults
(corresponds to the specific location of the subnetwork, rather
than the real sample), respectively, where ξ, η, and ζ are the
coefficients, and ξ ≥ η ≥ ζ > 0.
The flow of pretraining and fine-tuning is shown in Fig. 3.
The CNN layer of the pretrained model is still retrained, and
the MLP layer is replaced by N groups RBF module (N is the
number of split sublabels). Each RBF module is used to predict
which category the fault belongs to within this sublabel. The
prediction results of each RBF module are fused through a fully
connected layer to be the final fault diagnosis results.
IV. CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR
LM-CNN-BASED ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS
Given the training as well as the application of our proposed
model is cross-scene and cross-conditions, it is considered to be
improved by a cloud-edge collaborative model. In this section,
as shown in Fig. 4, given the flexibility and real-time capability
of edge computing and the efficiency of cloud computing, a
cloud-edge collaborative industrial equipment fault diagnosis
framework is proposed, consisting of three parts: Equipment
plane, edge plane, and cloud plane.
A. Edge Plane
1) Data Collection and Data Preprocessing: The real-time
data from industrial equipment collected by sensors will be
transmitted to the edge for data preprocessing. The data col-
lected may be unstructured and heterogeneous. In addition, these
data may also exist with missing, redundant, and noisy issues.
Therefore, the collected data should be complemented, outliers
removed, and denoised. The hidden noise in the data will be
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2022
(9) Fig. 4. Cloud-edge collaborative framework for our method.
removed by wavelet transform. The data preprocessed in the
edge plane is then transferred to the cloud plane.
B. Cloud Plane
After the data is preprocessed on the edge plane, the data from
various equipment and plants are uploaded to the servers in the
cloud plane. The data will be used to train the fault diagnosis
model. As the data is updated, the model continuously undergoes
incremental evolution. And according to the specificity require-
ments of each edge, the models in the cloud are compressed and
transmitted to each edge to meet the real-time requirements of
fault diagnosis tasks.
1) LM-CNN Fault Diagnosis Model Training: The data up-
dated will be resampled and aggregated for feature augmentation
for training the initial MIMO fault diagnosis model. Meanwhile,
another set of resampled data, processed by label splitting, is
utilized to fine-tune the pretrained model to obtain a global fault
diagnosis model.
The pretraining model is preferably trained with as many
faults as possible. On the one hand, this improves the
information-mining ability of the pretraining model, which is
the basis for the high performance of the model. On the other
hand, a more adequate sample in the fine-tuning phase can ensure
adequate information mining of the sublabels of faults.
2) Scene-Specific Fault Diagnosis Adaptation: For a specific
edge, it is possible that its working conditions are much less
complex than the faults described by the global fault data, and
the counts of some sublabels here are much smaller than the
global one. This results in a complex global fault diagnosis
model that may not accurately describe the faults at that edge,
and this complex model can also cost too much unnecessary
computational resources. Thus, the model is subject to tuning.
 REN et al.: LM-CNN: A CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS 9063

The global fault diagnosis model can be modified with scenario TABLE I
CLASS INFORMATION OF EXPERIMENT ON CWRU DATASET WITH VARIOUS
specificity and then utilized for equipment fault diagnosis in that LOCATIONS AND DIAMETERS
edge.
Through the information interaction between the edge-
computing resources equipped with this plant and the cloud-
computing resources, training samples applicable to this sce-
nario are screened out. Assume there are M faults in the global
fault label space in the cloud. m faults are to be diagnosed in
the edge (m < M ), and m̂ corresponding faults’ data available
in the cloud, as shown in Fig. 4. Obviously, there is no need to
utilize the whole training dataset.
The tuning is in two steps. First, since the conditions on
the individual edge side are relatively simple compared to the
global one, not all faults need to be considered. Therefore,
the first step of the compression is to prune the global model,
where the inputs and output neurons that are not related to the
target edge are pruned (each location of the model’s inputs is
related to a particular fault). Second, the postpruning model
is to be fine-tuned to obtain accuracy. The prepruning model
is then distilled into the postpruning model. The output of the
penultimate layer of the global model is used as the teacher label
for the postpruning model to learn. In this step, only the faults of
the target edges and the LSFs of these faults are used as training
samples for distillation. Fig. 5. Scene-specific faults in global faults.

V. INDUSTRIAL CASE STUDY

We demonstrate the performance of the LM-CNN-based fault
diagnosis method. The accuracy and the ability to diagnose
unknown faults were verified, respectively. We also validated the
effectiveness of the scenario-specific model adaptation method.
Without loss of generality, we use existing neural networks
(ResNet18, ResNet34) and their improved versions with our
method for comparison experiments.
A. Experimental Setup
1) Dataset:
To verify the effectiveness of LM-CNN, a comparative exper-
iment was conducted on the CWRU [36], a widely used bearing
fault dataset provided by the Case Western Reserve University
Electrical Technology Laboratory. The dataset was collected by
the accelerometer under four load conditions (0, 1, 2, and 3 hp),
providing four health states: normal, inner race fault, outer race
fault, and ball fault. The damage diameters are 7, 14, 21, and 28
mils. The acceleration data of the fan end and the drive end when
the sampling frequency is 12 kHz and the acceleration data of
the drive end when the sampling rate is 48 kHz are recorded,
respectively.
The acceleration signal at the drive end sampled at 12 kHz is
used for fault diagnosis experiments. To test the performance of
method, we select faults with damage of 7, 14, and 21 mils at the
ball (B), inner race (IR), and 6 o’clock of the outer race (OR),
respectively, as shown in Table I. Each fault in this experiment
contains 470 samples in training-set before resampling, and
each sample contains signals of 512 sampling points. In the
experiments, the label of each fault was split into two sublabels,
location and diameter.
2) Operating Environment:
The experimental environment comprises two parts: The edge
devices and the cloud server, which input the collected data
into the cloud-edge collaboration framework for fault diagno-
sis. Edge devices and cloud servers are configured as follows
and shown in Fig. 6. A cloud server and four edge devices
are configured in the cloud-edge system. The cloud server is
equipped with AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core CPU,
96 G RAM, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU, and the
edge devices are with Intel(R) i5-8500 CPU, 24 GB RAM. The
switch used for communication is HUAWEI S1730S-L8P-A1.
The equipment associated with these four edge devices operate
under various loads, respectively (the specific loads are given
in the experiment). The edge devices and the cloud server
communicate via LAN. Historical data of various categories of
faults are stored in different edge devices. Specifically, edge A
stores the data of faults B07, B14, and B21; edge B stores the
data of faults B14, B21, IR14, and IR21; edge C stores the data
of faults IR07, IR21, OR07, and OR21; and edge D stores the
data of faults IR07, IR14, OR07, and OR14.
B. Experiments and Analysis
Three sets of experiments were conducted. First, experiments
with imbalanced data are carried out to compare the performance
of LM-CNN with several existing methods. Besides, ablation ex-
periments are carried out to validate the fault diagnosis accuracy,
robustness of LM-CNN, and its ability to diagnose unknown
faults with missing data. Moreover, experiments are carried out
to validate the effectiveness of the scene-specific approach. The
batch size of the experiment is 256, and the learning rate is 3e−4.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 9064
Fig. 6. Configuration of edge devices and cloud servers and cloud
edge collaboration framework.
TABLE II
DESCRIPTION OF IMBALANCE DATASETS
1) Comparison of Performance for Imbalanced Data Among
Various Methods: Our data augmentation approach targets the
problems of data imbalance and small amount of data. In this
subsection, we experimentally verify the performance of the
proposed method to deal with the data imbalance problem. The
acceleration signals of these faults at 1, 2, and 3 hp are used
as the training and test dataset. Four different data fusions are
constructed to simulate various unbalanced data distributions.
With equal proportions of samples for each fault in Idx1, Idx1
can be considered as a balanced dataset. In Idx2–4, B, IR, and
OR are divided into different proportions, where 30%, 20%, and
10% of the samples are used for training, while the test samples
remain at 50% for comparison purposes. Table II shows the
division details.
We compared the proposed LM-CNN (ResNet18) with the
models proposed by Yang et al. [37], Tra et al. [38], Wen
et al. [39], and Chen et al. [40] through fault diagnosis ex-
periments. The results, averaged by 10 trials, are shown in
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2022
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF DIAGNOSIS RATE (%) AMONG LM-CNN AND VARIOUS
STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODS
TABLE IV
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS AMONG CNN, SEPARATED-CNN,
MIMO-CNN, AND LM-CNN
Table III. From the experimental results, it can be observed
that the proposed LM-CNN has higher diagnostic accuracy
and smaller standard deviation. Also, the standard deviation is
significantly reduced compared to MIMO-CNN. This shows the
advantages of our data augmentation method and the fine-tuning
method with label split.
2) Performance Comparison of Various Methods for Missing
Sample Data: In this part, we compare the fault diagnosis per-
formance of LM-CNN for faults missing sample data by ablation
experiments. The acceleration signals of these faults at 2 and 3 hp
are used as the training set. The acceleration signals at 0 and
1 hp are used as the test set. The experimental results are shown
in Table IV. We use the overall diagnostic accuracy (Acc), the
prediction accuracy of the location (AccL), and the diagnostic
accuracy of the diameter (AccD) as indicators to evaluate the
accuracy of the model, respectively. And diagnostic time per
batch (Time) is also used as an time efficiency indicator for
comparison of individual models. We verified the validity of
each structure in the model through ablation studies. LM-CNN
is compared with the basic CNN, the MIMO-augmented CNN
(MIMO-CNN), and CNN separated trained after label splitting
(Separated). The experimental results show the superiority of
our model. In fact, repeated experiments have shown that the
MIMO-augmentation structure does not significantly improve
the accuracy of the diagnostic model (comparison of CNN and
MIMO-CNN). Though the pattern provided for extraction is
significantly increased, it does not seem to be directly applicable
to the fault diagnosis task. It is more about adopting “ensemble”
to bring the accuracy of the model closer to its upper limit.
Apparently, the characteristics captured by MIMO need to be
further processed to be transformed into valuable information.
However, the fine-tuning method with label-splitting is well
suited for this task. The effectiveness of LM-CNN can be
demonstrated by comparing LM-CNN and the others; and the
upgraded result of LM-CNN compared to MIMO-CNN, which is
proof of the excellent interpretation and processing ability of the
label-splitting method for information. Besides, a comparison of
 REN et al.: LM-CNN: A CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS
TABLE V
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS OF FAULTS WITHOUT DATA BETWEEN MIMO-CNN AND LM-CNN
TABLE VI
CLASSIFICATION RATE OF IDX.2 AND IDX.4
1
Each row in the table is the frequency of faults being misclassified to each category. The
diagnosis rate for each faults is marked in red, and the LSFs for faults without data are
marked in yellow.
the computational times shows that this “ensemble” model does
not significantly decrease the computational efficiency.
In addition, the ability of LM-CNN to diagnose faults lacking
of samples was evaluated. We validated the diagnostic ability
of the models for samples with various classes of data lacking.
The three faults, B21, IR07, and OR14, are removed from the
training set to ensure that the remaining faults contain all their
LSFs, and the number of LSFs corresponding to each sublabel
is greater than 1. It is shown in Table V that LM-CNN has the
robustness to sample missing, where Acc(lost) represents the
diagnosis rate of fault without training data. Even in the case
that the training set is missing a class of data, the fault diagnostic
capability can be similar to that of the basic model (comparing
Idx.2 in Table V with MIMO-CNN in Table IV). Besides, the
accuracy of LM-CNN in this case is much higher than that of
the unfine-tuned model.
The diagnosis results of each fault with ResNet18 in Idx.2
and Idx.4 of Table V are shown in Table VI. As can be spotted,
despite the diagnosis rate of B21 is not high enough, only about
22% in Idx.2, it is much higher than the MIMO-only model (less
than 0.5%). Compared to the original model’s convergence to
0, it is clear that LM-CNN is effective. Meanwhile, LM-CNN
achieves a correct diagnosis rate of close to 60% for both the
location-sublabel and the diameter-sublabel of B21. Although
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9065
TABLE VII
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SCENE-SPECIFIC MODELS WITH GLOBAL
AND LOCAL MODELS
LM-CNN is not sufficient to make an accurate diagnosis of
unknown faults, it can give a description of various attributes
of the faults. The cause of not achieving may be that our
fine-tune method is not superior enough in the synergy of the
two sublabels. The experimental results of Idx.4 demonstrate
that the same diagnosis can be made when data of multiple faults
are missed. The prediction accuracy for the diameter of OR14
is about 90%. Furthermore, by comparing the diagnosis rate of
those faults without data-missing in the two sets, it is obvious
that the diagnosis rate of faults increases as the number of LSFs
increases.
3) Validity of the Scene-Specific Method: This experiment
is applied to validate the performance of the proposed scene-
specific model. Suppose the equipment in edge D may fail
on the outer and inner races of the bearing, and the possible
fault diameters are 7 and 14 mils. That is, faults OR07, OR14,
IR07, and IR14 may occur in this scene, while OR14 is without
historical data. The adopted training data are the whole faults
in Table I except B21 (unrelated to this edge equipment) and
OR14. The proposed scene-specific model is compared with the
global model and the local model trained only with the data from
the edge. To make the conditions of the comparative experiment
consistent, the structure of the local model and the global model
was kept the same.
Table VII shows the experimental results. The insufficient
collection of fault data makes the local model unable to diagnose
fault OR14 at all. OR14 even cannot be recognized. Obviously
at this edge, the fault diagnosis performance of the global model
is inferior to that of the scene-specific model, because it will be
disturbed by other faults not related to this edge. At this edge,
the fault diagnosis performance of the global model is also not
ideal, for it can be disturbed by other faults unrelated to this edge
(in particular, faults unrelated to this edge have LSFs of faults in
this scenario). The scene-specific model, on the other hand, has
a significantly lower misdiagnosis rate as a result of excluding
the effects of unrelated faults when fine-tuning. This proves the
effectiveness of our approach.
The scene-specific model is also much improved in terms
of computational efficiency. In fact, the width of the model is
 9066 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 18, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2022
reduced by half in this set of experiments (unrelated neurons
have been pruned). As a result, the computation time is also
reduced by nearly half.
VI. CONCLUSION
This article proposes a fault label sampling space enlarging
approach, label-split multiple-input convolutional neural net-
work, for adaptive fault diagnosis. The proposed method can
enlarge the label sampling space of faults with the existing fault
data and can address data imbalance. Exploiting the coupling of
label attributes, these attributes can be analyzed separately so
as to extend the sampling space of fault labels. The proposed
approach first analyzes the heterogeneousness and similarities
of faults through data augmentation; in addition, the fault char-
acteristics are redefined by analyzing the split fault sublabels.
This is also used for qualitative analysis of faults that lack
historical data. Finally, a distributed fault diagnosis framework
is constructed by cloud edge computing. A global fault diagnosis
model in the cloud is trained with data from each edge, and then
the global model is specifically tuned with fault data relevant to
the target scenario.
However, the method is only a preliminary attempt. Scenario-
specific fault diagnosis models require more efficient construc-
tion methods. Meanwhile, fault data augmentation as well as
model computation requires more efficient methods.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Ren, L. Zhang, L. Wang, F. Tao, and X. Chai, “Cloud manufacturing:
Key characteristics and applications,” Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf.,
vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 501–515, 2017.
[2] Q. Luo, Y. Chang, J. Chen, H. Jing, H. Lv, and T. Pan, “Multiple
degradation mode analysis via gated recurrent unit mode recognizer and
life predictors for complex equipment,” Comput. Ind., vol. 123, 2020,
Art. no. 103332.
[3] B. Cai, L. Huang, and M. Xie, “Bayesian networks in fault diagnosis,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2227–2240, Oct. 2017.
[4] Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A survey of fault diagnosis and
fault-tolerant techniques–Part I: Fault diagnosis with model-based and
signal-based approaches,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 6,
pp. 3757–3767, Jun. 2015.
[5] L. Zhang et al., “Cloud manufacturing: A new manufacturing paradigm,”
Enterprise Inf. Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 167–187, 2014.
[6] L. Ren, Y. Liu, D. Huang, K. Huang, and C. Yang, “MCTAN: A novel
multichannel temporal attention-based network for industrial health indi-
cator prediction,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3136768.
[7] X. Xu, “From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing,” Robot. Comput.-
Integr. Manuf., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 75–86, 2012.
[8] H. Luo, S. Yin, T. Liu, and A. Q. Khan, “A data-driven realization of the
control-performance-oriented process monitoring system,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 521–530, Jan. 2020.
[9] H. Shao, H. Jiang, H. Zhang, and T. Liang, “Electric locomotive bearing
fault diagnosis using a novel convolutional deep belief network,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 2727–2736, Mar. 2018.
[10] L. Ren, T. Wang, Y. Laili, and L. Zhang, “A data-driven self-supervised
LSTM-DeepFM model for industrial soft sensor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Infor-
mat., to be published, doi: 10.1109/TII.2021.3131471.
[11] H. Wang, Z. Liu, D. Peng, and Y. Qin, “Understanding and learning
discriminant features based on multiattention 1DCNN for wheelset bearing
fault diagnosis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 5735–5745,
Sep. 2020.
[12] S. Guo, B. Zhang, T. Yang, D. Lyu, and W. Gao, “Multitask convolutional
neural network with information fusion for bearing fault diagnosis and
localization,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 8005–8015,
Sep. 2020.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[13] A. H. Sodhro, S. Pirbhulal, and V. H. C. de Albuquerque, “Artificial
intelligence-driven mechanism for edge computing-based industrial ap-
plications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4235–4243,
Jul. 2019.
[14] R. Gao et al., “Cloud-enabled prognosis for manufacturing,” CIRP Ann.,
vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 749–772, 2015.
[15] W. Shi, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, Y. Li, and L. Xu, “Edge computing: Vision and
challenges,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 637–646, Oct. 2016.
[16] X. Wang, L. Ren, R. Yuan, L. T. Yang, and M. J. Deen, “QTT-
DLSTM: A cloud-edge-aided distributed LSTM for cyber-physical-social
Big Data,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3140238.
[17] X. Zhou, X. Yang, J. Ma, and K. I.-K. Wang, “Energy efficient smart routing
based on link correlation mining for wireless edge computing in IoT,” IEEE
Internet Things J., to be published, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3077937.
[18] K. Kaur, S. Garg, G. S. Aujla, N. Kumar, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, and
M. Guizani, “Edge computing in the industrial Internet of Things envi-
ronment: Software-defined-networks-based edge-cloud interplay,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 44–51, Feb. 2018.
[19] H. Tang, D. Li, J. Wan, M. Imran, and M. Shoaib, “A reconfigurable
method for intelligent manufacturing based on industrial cloud and edge
intelligence,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 4248–4259,
May 2020.
[20] H. Li, K. Ota, and M. Dong, “ECCN: Orchestration of edge-centric com-
puting and content-centric networking in the 5G radio access network,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 88–93, Jun. 2018.
[21] C. Wang, L. Guo, C. Wen, Q. Hu, and J. Qiao, “Event-triggered adaptive
attitude tracking control for spacecraft with unknown actuator faults,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2241–2250, Mar. 2020.
[22] F. Zhou, S. Yang, H. Fujita, D. Chen, and C. Wen, “Deep learning fault
diagnosis method based on global optimization GAN for unbalanced data,”
Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 187, 2020, Art. no. 104837.
[23] W. Liang, Y. Hu, X. Zhou, Y. Pan, and K. I-Kai Wang, “Variational few-
shot learning for microservice-oriented intrusion detection in distributed
industrial IoT,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 5087–5095,
Aug. 2022.
[24] J. Pan and J. McElhannon, “Future edge cloud and edge computing for
Internet of Things applications,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 439–449, Feb. 2018.
[25] C. Sun, M. Ma, Z. Zhao, S. Tian, R. Yan, and X. Chen, “Deep transfer
learning based on sparse autoencoder for remaining useful life prediction
of tool in manufacturing,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 15, no. 4,
pp. 2416–2425, Apr. 2019.
[26] Z. Wu, W. Lin, B. Fu, J. Guo, Y. Ji, and M. Pecht, “A local adaptive minority
selection and oversampling method for class-imbalanced fault diagnostics
in industrial systems,” IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 1195–1206,
Dec. 2020.
[27] S. Liu, H. Jiang, Z. Wu, and X. Li, “Data synthesis using deep fea-
ture enhanced generative adversarial networks for rolling bearing im-
balanced fault diagnosis,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 163, 2022,
Art. no. 108139.
[28] S. Shao, S. McAleer, R. Yan, and P. Baldi, “Highly accurate machine
fault diagnosis using deep transfer learning,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2446–2455, Apr. 2019.
[29] L. Feng and C. Zhao, “Fault description based attribute transfer for zero-
sample industrial fault diagnosis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 17,
no. 3, pp. 1852–1862, Mar. 2021.
[30] W. Lu, B. Liang, Y. Cheng, D. Meng, J. Yang, and T. Zhang, “Deep model
based domain adaptation for fault diagnosis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 2296–2305, Mar. 2017.
[31] H. Luo, H. Zhao, and S. Yin, “Data-driven design of fog-computing-aided
process monitoring system for large-scale industrial processes,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 4631–4641, Oct. 2018.
[32] X. Zhou, X. Xu, W. Liang, Z. Zeng, and Z. Yan, “Deep-learning-enhanced
multitarget detection for end-edge-cloud surveillance in smart IoT,” IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 12588–12596, Aug. 2021.
[33] T. Wang, H. Ke, X. Zheng, K. Wang, A. K. Sangaiah, and A. Liu, “Big
Data cleaning based on mobile edge computing in industrial sensor-cloud,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1321–1329, Feb. 2020.
[34] M. Havasi et al., “Training independent subnetworks for robust predic-
tion,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Representations, 2020, pp. 1–13.
[35] S. Fort, H. Hu, and B. Lakshminarayanan, “Deep ensembles: A loss
landscape perspective,” arXiv:1912.02757.
[36] W. A. Smith and R. B. Randall, “Rolling element bearing diagnostics using
the case western reserve university data: A benchmark study,” Mech. Syst.
Signal Process., vol. 64/65, pp. 100–131, 2015.
 REN et al.: LM-CNN: A CLOUD-EDGE COLLABORATIVE METHOD FOR ADAPTIVE FAULT DIAGNOSIS
[37] Y. Yang, H. Zheng, Y. Li, M. Xu, and Y. Chen, “A fault diagnosis
scheme for rotating machinery using hierarchical symbolic analysis and
convolutional neural network,” ISA Trans., vol. 91, pp. 235–252, 2019.
[38] V. Tra, J. Kim, S. A. Khan, and J.-M. Kim, “Bearing fault diagnosis under
variable speed using convolutional neural networks and the stochastic
diagonal Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 12, 2017,
Art. no. 2834.
[39] L. Wen, X. Li, L. Gao, and Y. Zhang, “A new convolutional neural network-
based data-driven fault diagnosis method,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 5990–5998, Jul. 2018.
[40] Z. Chen, A. Mauricio, W. Li, and K. Gryllias, “A deep learning method
for bearing fault diagnosis based on cyclic spectral coherence and con-
volutional neural networks,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 140, 2020,
Art. no. 106683.
Lei Ren (Member, IEEE) received the Ph.D. de-
gree in computer science from the Institute of
Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bei-
jing, China, in 2009.
He is currently a Professor with the School of
Automation Science and Electrical Engineering,
Beihang University, Beijing. His research inter-
ests include industrial Internet-of-Things, indus-
trial Big Data and AI, and cloud manufacturing.
Dr. Ren is an Associate Editor of IEEE TRANS-
ACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS AND LEARNING
SYSTEMS, SIMULATION-Transactions of the Society for Modeling and
Simulation International, and other international journals.
Zidi Jia (Graduate Student Member, IEEE) re-
ceived the bachelor’s degree in automation and
master’s degree in control engineering from the
School of Automation Engineering, University of
Electronic Science and Technology of China,
Chengdu, China, in 2017 and 2020, respec-
tively. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in pattern recognition and intelligent sys-
tems with the School of Automation Science
and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University,
Beijing, China.
His research interests include industrial artificial intelligence, the in-
dustrial Internet-of-Things, and industrial process monitoring.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology CAS. Downloaded on December 07,2023 at 14:42:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9067
Tao Wang received the B.S. degree in automa-
tion in 2020 from the School of Automation Sci-
ence and Electrical Engineering, Beihang Uni-
versity, Beijing, China, where he is currently
working toward the postgraduate degree in elec-
tronic information.
His research interests include industrial intelli-
gence, natural language processing, and knowl-
edge distillation.
Yehan Ma (Member, IEEE) received the B.S.
and M.S. degrees in automation from the Harbin
Institute of Technology (HIT), Harbin, China, in
2015 and 2013, respectively, and the Ph.D. de-
gree in computer science from Washington Uni-
versity in St. Louis, St. Louis, in 2020.
She is currently an Assistant Professor with
the School of Electronic Information and Electri-
cal Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, China. She has authored or coau-
thored papers in top-tier conferences and jour-
nals, including EMSOFT, ICCPS, TCAD, TCPS, and TCST. She has
broadly investigated techniques and solutions for holistic managements
of computation, communication, and control in cyber-physical systems.
Her research interests include the industrial Internet of Things, cyber-
physical systems, and edge computing.
Dr. Ma is the recipient of the Fullgraf Fellowship and Shanghai Chen-
guang Scholar.
Lihui Wang received the Ph.D. degree in in-
telligence science from Kobe University, Kobe,
Japan, in 1993.
He is currently a Chair Professor with the KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Swe-
den. He has authored or coauthored ten books
and authored more than 600 scientific publi-
cations. His research interests include cyber-
physical systems, real-time monitoring and con-
trol, human–robot collaboration, and adaptive
manufacturing systems.
Dr. Wang is the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Manu-
facturing Research, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, and Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. He is a Fellow of Canadian
Academy of Engineering (CAE), Fellow of International Academy for
Production Engineering (CIRP), Fellow of Society of Manufacturing En-
gineers (SME), and Fellow of American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers (ASME). He is also a registered Professional Engineer in Canada,
the President of North American Manufacturing Research Institution
of SME from 2020 to 2021, and the Chairman of Swedish Production
Academy from 2018 to 2020.