2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronics Technology (ICET)
Dual Mix-up Adversarial Domain Adaptation for
Machine Remaining Useful Life Prediction
Yanjun Dong
2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronics Technology (ICET) | 978-1-6654-8508-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICET55676.2022.9824464
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Chengdu, China
202021081830@std.uestc.edu.cn
Zhou Wu
Peking University Education Foundation
Peking, China
zhouwu@pku.edu.cn
Abstract—Remaining useful life (RUL) prediction is one of
the core issues in the equipment maintenance process. It aims
to accurately forecast machines’ run-to-failure life span using
previous and current state data. As various data-driven models
are proving to be effective, because RUL labels for machines in
particular conditions are difficult to obtain, domain adaptation
approaches begins to be explored in the RUL prediction issue. We
propose a novel Dual Mix-up Adversarial Domain Adaptation
(DMADA) approach to further improve the RUL forecasting
accuracy, building on existing RUL domain adaptation studies.
In DMADA, both time-series mix-up and domain mix-up reg-
ularization are conducted. Virtual samples generated by linear
interpolation lead to enriched and more continuous sample space.
The linear interpolation encourages consistency of prediction in-
between samples and allows the model to explore the feature
space more thoroughly. At the same time, the domain mix-
up conserves the invariance of learned features. The two mix-
up regularizations combined promote both the transferability
and the discriminability of extracted features, which is essential
to satisfactory unsupervised domain adaptation performance.
Thorough experiments on the C-MPASS dataset are conducted
and satisfactory results prove the proposed approach effective.
Index Terms—RUL prediction,Adversarial domain adaptation,
mix-up
I. I NTRODUCTION
The goal of remaining useful life (RUL) prediction is to
accurately predict the remaining time for a machine to
normally function until a failure happens. According to the
analysis of the remaining life prediction results, the equip-
ment’s availability and reliability can be improved. At the same
time, maintenance costs and the risk for operations failure
events could be reduced. Studies on RUL prediction helps to
mitigate serious costs brought by equipment’s sudden failures,
which have important practical value [1].
The methods for forecasting RUL is mainly divided into two
categories: model-based ones [2], [3] and data-driven ones [4]–
[6]. Model-based methods require information from machine
constructions as well as statistical knowledge to build physical
models. They are complex to build, expertise-requiring, and
hard to generalize. Data-driven approaches are becoming more
978-1-6654-8508-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Chunhua Zhou
Shanghai Radio Equipment Research Institute
Shanghai, China
zhouchh800223@sina.com
Mianzhi Cheng
Shanghai Radio Equipment Research Institute
Shanghai, China
vocalano@163.com
popular along with the development of machine learning and
deep learning, studies like [7], [8] show data-driven methods’
effectiveness, and no prior knowledge of the machines is
needed.
Traditional deep learning approaches only works when large
number of labeled data are supplied and there is no distribution
difference between training data and testing data. When it
comes to real-world industrial application, however, it can be
difficult to collect sufficient labeled data of the aiming machine
under a specific working condition because of time or financial
reasons. Domain adaptation has been developed to address
such issues.
In the RUL prediction problem, raw data is sampled read-
ings from continuous signal streams on different sensors. It
leads to a gap between the sampled data distribution and the
real data distribution due to real-world precision constraints.
As a result, even though at last the target domain is well-
aligned with the source domain, the prediction effect in the
target domain is not good enough, because the data from both
domains is sampled sparsely and the learned knowledge from
the source domain is flawed at the first place.
To address this issue and inspired by the mix-up tech-
nique [9], [10], we proposed a novel dual mix-up adversarial
domain adaptation (DMADA) approach to conduct domain
adaptation on the RUL prediction problem. In our approach,
a time-series mix-up regularization and a domain mix-up
regularization are both designed to close the gap between
sampled data distribution and real data distribution. Mix-up
generates convex combinations of virtual samples. With the
dual mix-up regularization, wider range of samples is available
and the prediction in-between samples are enforced to be
more consistent. The time series mix-up leads to a more
continuous and enriched sample space, allowing the feature
extractor to explore more thorough information and to learn
more discriminative representations. At the same time, the
domain mix-up strengthens the domain discriminator, resulting
in the model learning more domain-invariant representations
due to the feature extractor being adversarially trained with
573
 the domain discriminator. In this paper, our contributions are
as follows:
1. The novel DMADA is proposed leveraging time-series
mixup and domain mix-up to bridge the distance between sam-
pled data and real-world data distributions on cross-domain
RUL prediction problems.
2. Our method encourages better alignment between two
domains and thorough experiments are done showing an
overall more precise RUL prediction.
II. R ELATED WORK
A. RUL Prediction
Deep learning methods for RUL prediction are mainly
divided into a convolutional neural network (CNN) based
ones and recurrent neural network (RNN) based ones. [7]
was the first attempt to adopt CNN in RUL prediction. Li
[11] developed a multi-scale feature extraction method and
claims to connect the raw data directly to the true RUL value.
LSTM is a widely used RNN variant and is designed to address
long-term sequence feature extraction. Cheng [8] proposed to
ensemble Bayesian inference with a series of LSTM modules.
Shi [12] developed a dual LSTM framework and achieve real-
time RUL prediction with high precision. Al-Dulaimi [13]
combined LSTM with CNN and design a hybrid approach
is also proven useful.
B. Adversarial Domain Adaptation
Inspired by the famous Generative Adversarial Network,
Gainin [14] propose the milestone Domain Adversarial Neural
Network, in which a domain discriminator aiming and the
feature extractor is trained adversarially together. The domain
discriminator distinguishes whether a feature comes from
the source domain or target domain, enforcing the feature
generator to learn domain-invariant features. However, for
the multi-class classification task, even when the domain
discriminator is fooled, there is no guarantee that their feature
distribution is similar. Long et al [15] proposed Conditional
Domain Adversarial Network (CDAN) and use multi-linear
conditioning to solve this issue. Furthermore, CDAN aligns
the feature-category joint distribution to align features as well
as corresponding labels. Tzeng [16] proposes to use soft
label distribution matching loss to transfer knowledge between
two domains. Later, Tzeng [17] propose the Adversarial Dis-
criminative Domain Adaptation (ADDA) that divides training
feature generator as source one and target one. Only the
target domain feature generator is adversarially trained with
the domain discriminator.
C. Cross-domain RUL prediction
Domain adaptation methods are mainly developed in classi-
fication tasks, and the RUL prediction is a time-series regres-
sion problem. THus, fewer domain adaptation methods have
been studied in this issue. [18] is the first attempt of the domain
adaptive method on the C-MPASS dataset, which employs
the basic DANN approach. [19] applied the framework of
ADDA, and then added Info-loss to the ADDA framework
574
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and [20] applied the idea of contrast learning to maximize
the mutual information of target domain samples and target
domain features to achieve the best results so far among
the domain adaptive methods on C-MPASS dataset. Li [21]
combined the adaptive batch regularization with the AdaBN-
DCNN framework by combining deep convolutional networks.
Fu et al [22] designed a deep residual LSTM network with
domain invariance to extract high-dimensional features.
III. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Settings and notations
To illustrate the problem clearly, we present below the math-
ematical symbols for the basic domain adaptation issue [23]. In
domain adaptation, a domain is denoted as D = {X , P (X)},
where X is the feature space and the P (X) represents the
marginal distribution of the data in the feature space. There
are two basic domains: the source domain DS ={XS , PS (X)}
with labels and the target domain DT ={XT , PT (X)} without
labels. The general idea of unsupervised domain adaptation is
to use the knowledge learned in the labeled source domain,
transfer it to the unlabeled target domain and get better results.
In our machine RUL prediction problem, we aim to conduct
supervised deep learning in one working condition and predict
other engines’ RUL value in different working conditions.
The source domain is denoted as DS ={XSi , ySi }ni=1 S
. The
i M ×K
nS is the total number of samples. In XS ∈ R , M
represents the M input sensors, and K means K time steps.
ySi ∈ R is the RUL label. Likewise, the target domain is
denoted as DT = {XTj }nj=1 T
. XTj ∈ RM ×K and nT is the
overall number of samples in the target domain. Firstly, in
source domain we pre-train a feature extractor ES and a
RUL predictorR, conducting a conventional supervised deep
learning. The weights of ES are transferred to the feature
extractor in target domain ET for initialization and the RUL
predictor remain unchanged. A domain discriminator D is set
to adversarially training together with ET , ET is optimized
with adversarial loss and Info-loss, as well as time-series mix-
up loss and domain mix up loss. A detailed explanation of each
step is provided in following sections.
B. Supervised pre-training
1) Recurrent Feature Extractor: In the time-series regres-
sion problem, the long short term memory network [24] is
widely used. It introduces a gating mechanism to control
the accumulation rate of information, which can selectively
add new information and selectively forget the accumulated
information. In our proposed DMADA, we leverage a five-
layer bi-directional LSTM model as the feature extractor. It
processes the time series in both directions, leading to more
thorough exploitation in samples.
2) RUL predictor: The RUL predictor is a multi-layer
neural network R. It process the features extracted with the
bi-LSTM module : fS = ES (XS ), to a one dimensional RUL
value we desired:Rd → R. In the pre-train supervised deep
learning process, the feature extractor ES and RS is trained
together with the mean square error loss (RMSE) between the
 true value of RUL labels and the predicted RUL values through
XS fS
the network. The loss is formulated as below:
RUL Prediction
1 X
nS

2 Mix-up ES R
Lmse = ŷSi − ySi , (1) Time Series
nS i=1 XS fS Mix-up Regularization

where nS is the total number of source samples, ŷS = Weight Transfer

R(ES (XS )is the predicted RUL value, and yS is the true value
of the corresponding sample.
C. Dual Mix-up Adversarial Domain Adaptation (DMADA)
1) Adversarial Domain Adaptation: In the adversarial do-
main adaptation module, ET and R are the feature extractors
and the RUL predictor respectively. Since there is no labeled
data in the target domain, we initialize ET and R with the
weights of the pre-trained source model. Samples xS and xT
are all feed into ET and get features fS and fT . To encourage
ET to learn more domain-invariant representations, a domain
discriminator D is built. The domain discriminator’s task is
to distinguish which domain does a feature comes from as
accurately as possible. The adversarial training formulation is
as follows:
min max Ladv =EXs ∼PS [log D (ES (XS ))]
ET D cycle level.
(2)
+EXT ∼PT [log (1 − D (ET (XT )))] ,
where ES and ET denoted the feature extractor of the source
domain and target domain respectively. The XS and XT
represent the time-series data from the two domains. During
the training process, domain discriminator D tries to minimize
the Ladv while the feature extractor ET tries to maximize
Ladv to learn domain-invariant representations. In this way,
we reduce the discrepancy between the feature distributions
of the target domain and that of the source domain.
2) InfoNCE Loss: Adversarial domain adaptation methods
successfully transfer knowledge by learning domain-invariant
features. Unfortunately, the target domain-specific information
could be ignored when minimizing the adversarial loss. Our
DMADA follows the suggestion of CADA [20] to preserve
target domain-specific features by leveraging the InfoNCE
loss. The formulation of the InfoNCE loss is as follows:
" #
eϕk (xk ,fT )
min LInfoNCE = − E log P ϕk (xj ,fT )
, (3)
ET ,Θ XT
xj ∈XT e
where ϕk (xj , fT ) = xj T Θ (fT ), and Θ is a fully connected
layer.
D. Dual Mix-up Regularization
In our proposed DMADA, we apply the dual mix-up method
to the domain adaptation issue of the RUL prediction problem.
Generally, the mix-up is a data augmentation method produc-
ing virtual training samples [9]. The principle of mix-up is
to randomly select two sample pairs {xi , yi } and {xj , yj } to
generate convex combinations:
x̃ = M λ(xi , xj ) = λxi + (1 − λ)xj ,
(4)
ỹ = M λ(yi , yj ) = λyi + (1 − λ)yj ,
Domain Mix-up
XT fT
Regularization
D Domain Classification
Mix-up ET
XT fT InfoNCE
Fig. 1. The architecture of the proposed dual mix-up adversarial domain
adaptation (DMADA).
where λ is randomly chosen from a beta distribution β(α, α),
and α ∈ (0, ∞). This idea is relatively intuitive, yet effective.
It leverages linear interpolation to enrich the dataset which
leads to a more continuous latent feature space. Mix-up does
not acquire prior expertise of the dataset, and it frequently
improves the deep learning model’s generalization ability [9].
Both time-series and domain mix-ups are conducted on a time
1) Time-series Mix-up Regularization: The time-series
mix-up regularization is divided into two situations: labeled
one and unlabeled one. For the source domain, all time-series
data has a corresponding label, and a random pair from the
same mini-batch is selected to generate (exS , yeS ). The mix-up
source sample encourages the prediction to be more consistent
in-between samples:
LrS (ES , R) = E(xi ,yi ),(xj ,yj )∼DS ℓ(h(e
xS ), yeS ), (5)
S S S S
where h is the composition of feature extractor ET and the
RUL predictor R , h = R ◦ E. As for the target domain,
there are no real label. Fig. 1 shows the process of the
unlabeled time-series mix-up. First of all, in order to utilize
the mix-up regularization, we decided to leverage the outcome
of RUL predictor R: ŷT = h(xT ) as the pseudo label of
the target domain.In this way we are able to conduct the
time-series convex combination, denoted as (e xT , Mλ (ŷTi , ŷTj ),
i j
with a pair of data (xT , xT ) and their corresponding pseudo
labels (ŷTi , ŷTj ). Other than that, because Mλ (ŷTi , ŷTj ) is the
direct mix-up of the pseudo labels, another obvious constraint
surfaced. It is preferable that Mλ (ŷTi , ŷTj ) and h(e xT ) to be
consistent.
xT ), Mλ (ŷTi , ŷTj )),
LrT (ET , R) = E(xi ,xj )∼DT L1 (h(e (6)
T T
We use the L1-Norm function to punish the difference between
Mλ (ŷTi , ŷTj ) and h(e
xT ) .
2) Domain Mix-up Regularization: In the above adver-
sarial domain adaptation framework, both source features and
target domain features are fed into the domain discriminator
D. Because there is considerable discrepancy between the
source domain and the target domain, the discriminator D
should be able to not only differentiate true features but also

575
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I TABLE II
P ROPERTIES OF 4 DATASETS PARAMETER SETTINGS FOR λ AND PREHEAT EPOCHS

Dataset FD001 FD002 FD003 FD004 Scenario λ Number of preheat epoch

#Training engines 100 260 100 249 FD001→FD002 0.2 10
#Testing engines 100 259 100 248 FD001→FD003 0.2 60
#Max life span(cycles) 362 378 512 128 FD001→FD004 0.001 60
#Operating conditions 1 6 1 6 FD002→FD001 0.001 40
#Fault types 1 1 2 2 FD002→FD003 0.001 40
FD002→FD004 0.2 20
FD003→FD001 0.2 70
FD003→FD002 0.2 40
FD003→FD004 0.2 60
the mixed up features fS = ES (xS ) and fT = ET (xT ). FD004→FD001 0.2 40
By this method, discriminator D can learn more about the FD004→FD002 0.001 40
domain difference and distinguish more precisely among the FD004→FD003 0.001 40
latent feature space. The adversarial loss after domain mix-up
is as follows:
Lradv (ES , ET , D) = E(xi ,xj )∼DS log D(ES (e
xS )) window method. One sample is composed of 30 continuous
S S
(7) time-cycle and the step size is 1. Then, we chose the following
+E(xi ,xj )∼DT log(1 − D(ET (e
xT ))),
T T
sensors: S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S9, S11, S12, S13, S14, S15,
Because the feature extractor ET and the domain discriminator S17, S20, and S21, since they presented informative with
D is trained adversarially, the performance of ET improves the degradation of engines. Thus, every input sample would
as that of discriminator D improves. The feature Extractor be 30×14 in dimension. Also, a linear piece-wise RUL is
ET will learn more domain-invariant representation during the adopted. In our experiment when the RUL label is larger than
process of minimizing the Lradv . 130, it is re-set to 130 cycles for the machine is considered
3) Overall loss function: healthy. At last, in order to avoid value difference from
min maxLrS (ES , R) + LrT (ET , R) + Ladv (ES , ET , D) different working conditions influencing the adaption process,
E,Θ D
, (8) all data are Min-Max normalized into [0,1].
+ Lradv (ET , D) + λLInfoNCE (ET , Θ)
B. Experiment Settings
where LrS (ES , R), LrT (ET , R) and LNCE (ET , Θ) are used to In our proposed DMADA, there is a source domain feature
optimize the feature extractor on target domain ET , and loss extractor ES , a target domain feature extractor ET , a general
Ladv (ES , ET , D) and Lradv (ET , D) are leverage to updated RUL predictor R and a domain discriminator D. Both feature
the domain discriminator D. The two losses mentioned both extractors of the source domain and target domain is five
contribute to improve the performance of the feature extractor. consecutive bi-direction LSTM layers with 32 neurons in
Particularly, the two mix-up regularization enriches the dataset, each layer. The RUL predictor R is composed of three fully
smooth the output distribution and make the latent feature connected (FC) layers with 32, 16, and 1 hidden neurons
space more continuous. The time-series mix-up bridges the respectively. The domain classifier is also built with three
gap between sample distribution and real data distribution successive FC layers with 64, 32, and 1 hidden neurons
encouraging better alignment between two domains. Domain respectively. All the FC layer is followed by a nonlinear
mix-up enforces the learned representation to be more domain- activation function (ReLU) and dropout regularization is used
invariant. Combined together in DMADA the two mix-up leads to mitigate the over-fitting problem.
to better performance of RUL prediction. Following the study of [20], during training, each mini-batch
IV. E XPERIMENT contains 256 shuffled samples from engines in same operation
condition.Adam optimizer is used when training to minimize
A. Data Preparation losses and the learning rate is both 0.5e-5 for the domain
we use the data from Turbo Engine Degradation Simulation discriminator D and feature extractor ET . For the InfoNCE
using C-MAPSS [26] for our experiment. There are four module the learning rate is set to 1e-2. The training epoch
different combinations of working conditions and fault modes range varies from 100 to 300 epochs for different tasks. As
are denoted as FD001, FD002, FD003, and FD004. Under each for the weight of InfoNCE loss λ we follow [20] settings as
operating condition, samples of readings from various sensors well.
on different engines are collected. The goal is to leverage the We follow the studies [9], [10] and chose α = 0.2 for
signal data and predict the remaining normally working cycle the β distribution. As Fig. 2 shows, when λ is chosen from
as precisely as possible. β(0.2, 0.2), most generated virtual samples would be much
The goal is to leverage the sampled signal data and pre- closer to the real sample. In this way, we enrich the dataset and
dict another engine’s remaining normally working cycle as avoid producing intermediate samples which are far from real
precisely as possible. Following the study of [18], [20], firstly samples at the same time. In our DMADA, domain mix-up, as
we process the raw time-dependent signal data with the sliding well as time-series mix-up in the source domain, are conducted

576
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE III
C OMPARISON AGAINST FIVE STATE - OF - THE - ART M ETHODS

RMSE Score
Method WDGRL [25] ADDA [19] RULDDA [18] CADA [20] DMADA WDGRL ADDA RULDDA CADA DMADA
FD001→FD002 21.46 31.26 24.08 19.52 18.40 33160 4865 2684 2122 2016
FD001→FD003 71.7 57.09 43.08 39.58 25.22 15936 32472 10259 8415 2417
FD001→FD004 57.24 56.66 45.7 31.23 28.16 86139 68859 26981 11577 7324
FD002→FD001 15.24 19.73 23.91 13.88 13.65 157572 689 2430 351 316
FD002→FD003 41.45 37.22 47.26 33.53 28.18 19053 11029 12756 5213 3575
FD002→FD004 37.62 37.64 45.17 33.71 31.23 523722 16856 25738 15106 12831
FD003→FD001 36.05 40.41 27.15 19.54 19.90 18307 32451 2391 1451 1667
FD003→FD002 40.11 42.53 30.42 19.33 19.20 32112 459911 6754 5257 4608
FD003→FD004 29.98 31.88 31.82 20.61 21.38 296061 82520 5775 3219 3503
FD004→FD001 42.01 37.81 32.37 20.10 19.63 45394 43794 13377 1840 1092
FD004→FD002 35.88 36.67 27.54 18.5 19.07 38221 23822 4937 4460 3735
FD004→FD003 18.18 23.59 23.31 14.49 14.12 77977 1117 1679 682 665

relatively more dangerous than predicting the failure happens

Fig. 2. The probability density function of beta distribution with different α
from the very first epoch. In contrast, when conducting time-
series mix-up in the target domain, after waiting for a few
epochs, the output of the RUL predictor is considered as the
pseudo RUL values. Because the predicted RUL value is likely
approaching the target domain true corresponding label after
training a while. So the target domain time-series mix-up loss
is added into the overall algorithm after a few epochs. The
waited epoch (preheat epoch) setting is different for every task
and the detail is listed in Table II.
C. Experiment Results
To evaluate the performance of our DMADA model, we
follow the study of [18], [20], both root mean square error
(RMSE) method and the Score function are leveraged. The
RMSE is formulated as follows:
v
u N
u1 X 2 the predicted remaining life expectancy is no longer than the
RMSE = t (ŷi − yi ) ,
N i=1
where N represents the total number of testing samples, and
ŷ denotes the predicted RUL value.
The Score function punishes the situation more when the
predicted RUL value is larger than the true label. Because
in that case, the model predicts machines deteriorate slower,
sooner than it does. The score formulates as follows:
 P  −ŷ 
 1 N e yi13 i
− 1 , if (ŷi < yi ) .
N i=1
Score = PN  ŷi −yi  (10)
1

N i=1 e
10 − 1 , if (ŷi > yi ) .
There are four datasets with different operating conditions
and fault modes. We treat one of them as the source domain
and another one as the target domain in a roll. The pre-training
is conducted with source domain labeled data and domain
alignment is performed with the target domain unlabeled data.
This way we get 12 scenarios with each dataset being source
and target in a term. We compare our approach against the
other five state-of-art methods which also study cross-domain
RUL prediction on the C-MPASS dataset. As shown in Table
III, 9 out of 12 tasks the proposed DMADA gets the best
result. Particularly, our approach shows great improvement
in tasks like FD002→FD003 with such differences between
them. Overall, our approach outperforms the second-best result
(CADA) on average by 6% in RMSE and 18% in Score.
D. Ablation study
In this section, an ablation study is performed to investigate
the independent contribution of the two mix-up modules from
the DMADA. We conducted experiments leveraging without
either time-series mix-up and domain mix-up respectively on
12 adaptation tasks without either mix-up regularization. As
Table IV shows, removing time-series mix-up or domain mix-
up on average does not affect much on the RMSE results.
However, without the time-series mix-up, the Score results are
5.1% worse and without domain mix-up, the average Score is
27.66% worse compared to the DMADA. And Score function
as an evaluation criterion is valued more because it is preferred
(9)
true RUL. Furthermore, DMADA performs the best when
considering RMSE and the score together, indicating the time-
series mix-up and domain mix-up conducted together indeed
helps to accurately predict the RUL value.
V. C ONCLUSION
We propose a novel Dual Mix-up adversarial domain adap-
tation approach to conducting cross-domain RUL prediction.

577
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE IV
T HE ABLATION STUDY OF TWO MIX - UP MODULES

RMSE Score
w/o time-series mix-up w/o domain mix-up DMADA w/o time-series mix-up w/o domain mix-up DMADA
FD001→FD002 18.89 2.66% 18.70 1.63% 18.40 2204 9.29% 2039 1.10% 2017
FD001→FD003 22.64 -10.23% 25.37 0.59% 25.22 1724 -28.67% 2244 -7.15% 2416
FD001→FD004 29.48 4.69% 29.32 4.12% 28.16 7265 -0.81% 7288 -0.50% 7324
FD002→FD001 13.50 -1.10% 13.62 -0.22% 13.65 312 -1.32% 333 5.33% 316
FD002→FD003 29.67 5.29% 29.88 6.03% 28.81 3860 7.96% 4090 14.39% 3575
FD002→FD004 31.24 0.03% 31.18 -0.16% 31.23 23245 81.16% 17007 32.55% 12831
FD003→FD001 21.48 7.94% 18.65 -6.28% 19.90 2042 22.46% 1231 -26.17% 1667
FD003→FD002 19.76 2.92% 18.91 -1.51% 19.20 6801 47.58% 6568 42.52% 4608
FD003→FD004 21.41 0.14% 21.21 -0.80% 21.38 6028 72.03% 3559 1.57% 3503
FD004→FD001 20.62 5.04% 19.90 1.38% 19.63 1243 13.74% 1153 5.51% 1093
FD004→FD002 19.71 3.36% 18.06 -5.39% 19.70 6701 79.41% 3653 -2.20% 3735
FD004→FD003 14.04 -0.57% 14.26 0.99% 14.12 859 29.08% 627 -5.78% 665
Average 1.68% 0.04% 27.66% 5.10%

The DMADA combines the time-series mix-up and domain
mix-up to the adversarial domain framework. The enriched
dataset leads to a more continuous latent feature space. Better
alignment between the source domain and target domain is
achieved because DMADA encourages the sample distribu-
tion to be closer to real distribution in the two domains.
The DMADA gets satisfactory results for RUL prediction
precision on the C-MPASS dataset, an average of 6% and
18% performance improving are achieved in two evaluation
metrics comparing to the state-of-the-art methods, indicating
its effectiveness.
R EFERENCES
[1] Fault Diagnosis. John Wiley Sons, Ltd, 2006, ch. 5, pp. 172–283.
[2] Y. Lei, N. Li, S. Gontarz, J. Lin, S. Radkowski, and J. Dybala, “A
model-based method for remaining useful life prediction of machinery,”
IEEE Trans. Reliab., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1314–1326, 2016.
[3] N. Li, Y. Lei, T. Yan, N. Li, and T. Han, “A wiener-process-model-
based method for remaining useful life prediction considering unit-to-
unit variability,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 2092–
2101, 2019.
[4] Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, and S. Addepalli, “Remaining useful life prediction
using deep learning approaches: A review,” Procedia manufacturing,
vol. 49, pp. 81–88, 2020.
[5] B. Yang, R. Liu, and E. Zio, “Remaining useful life prediction based on
a double-convolutional neural network architecture,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 9521–9530, 2019.
[6] K. Liu, Y. Shang, Q. Ouyang, and W. D. Widanage, “A data-driven
approach with uncertainty quantification for predicting future capacities
and remaining useful life of lithium-ion battery,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 3170–3180, 2021.
[7] G. Sateesh Babu, P. Zhao, and X.-L. Li, “Deep convolutional neural
network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful
life,” in International conference on database systems for advanced
applications, 2016, pp. 214–228.
[8] Y. Cheng, J. Wu, H. Zhu, S. W. Or, and X. Shao, “Remaining useful life
prognosis based on ensemble long short-term memory neural network,”
IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, pp.
1–12, 2020.
[9] H. Zhang, M. Cisse, Y. N. Dauphin, and D. Lopez-Paz, “mixup: Beyond
empirical risk minimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412, 2017.
[10] Y. Wu, D. Inkpen, and A. El-Roby, “Dual mixup regularized learning
for adversarial domain adaptation,” vol. 12374, 2020, pp. 540–555.
[11] H. Li, W. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and E. Zio, “Remaining useful life prediction
using multi-scale deep convolutional neural network,” Applied Soft
Computing, vol. 89, p. 106113, 2020.
[12] Z. Shi and A. Chehade, “A dual-lstm framework combining change point
detection and remaining useful life prediction,” Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, vol. 205, p. 107257, 2021.
[13] A. Al-Dulaimi, S. Zabihi, A. Asif, and A. Mohammadi, “Hybrid deep
neural network model for remaining useful life estimation,” in ICASSP
2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2019, pp. 3872–3876.
[14] Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Lavio-
lette, M. Marchand, and V. Lempitsky, “Domain-adversarial training of
neural networks,” 2016.
[15] M. Long, Z. CAO, J. Wang, and M. I. Jordan, “Conditional adversarial
domain adaptation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-
Bianchi, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 31, 2018.
[16] E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, T. Darrell, and K. Saenko, “Simultaneous
deep transfer across domains and tasks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), December 2015.
[17] E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Adversarial discrim-
inative domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017.
[18] P. R. de Oliveira da Costa, A. Akçay, Y. Zhang, and U. Kaymak,
“Remaining useful lifetime prediction via deep domain adaptation,”
Reliability Engineering System Safety, vol. 195, p. 106682, 2020.
[19] M. Ragab, Z. Chen, M. Wu, C. K. Kwoh, and X. Li, “Adversarial
transfer learning for machine remaining useful life prediction,” in 2020
IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management
(ICPHM). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–7.
[20] M. Ragab, Z. Chen, M. Wu, C. S. Foo, C. K. Kwoh, R. Yan, and
X. Li, “Contrastive adversarial domain adaptation for machine remaining
useful life prediction,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 17, no. 8, pp.
5239–5249, 2021.
[21] J. Li, X. Li, and D. He, “Domain adaptation remaining useful life
prediction method based on adabn-dcnn,” in 2019 Prognostics and
System Health Management Conference (PHM-Qingdao). IEEE, 2019,
pp. 1–6.
[22] S. Fu, Y. Zhang, L. Lin, M. Zhao, and S.-s. Zhong, “Deep residual
lstm with domain-invariance for remaining useful life prediction across
domains,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 216, p. 108012,
2021.
[23] S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, “A survey on transfer learning,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1345–
1359, 2010.
[24] S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural
Computation, vol. 9, pp. 1735–1780, 1997.
[25] J. Shen, Y. Qu, W. Zhang, and Y. Yu, “Wasserstein distance guided
representation learning for domain adaptation,” in Thirty-second AAAI
conference on artificial intelligence, 2018.
[26] A. Saxena, K. Goebel, D. Simon, and N. Eklund, “Damage propagation
modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation,” in 2008 Interna-
tional Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008.

578
Authorized licensed use limited to: Center for Science Technology and Information (CESTI). Downloaded on June 12,2024 at 02:39:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.