Hard Negative Samples Contrastive Learning for Remaining Useful-Life Prediction of Bearings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, a contrastive learning method is used for predicting the remaining useful life of bearing.
The manuscript is easy to read and documented correctly.
The abstract is appropriately structured, giving the contextualization and formulation of the research question, results, and conclusions.
The figures are of good quality and addressed adequately in the manuscript.
The English language is good.
I have only two comments:
- It would be more supportive to the proposed methodology if the authors compare the results of the proposed approach of RUL with any other methodologies experimented with the PRONOSTIA dataset.
- I recommend to add to the introduction section the following references:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925231217303363
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8454498
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/7/3218
In general, the presented work is well-written and well organized and worth publishing
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the article:
Hard Negative Samples Contrastive Learning for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Bearings
The paper contains a theoretical and an experimental part. The authors clearly described the method used and the results obtained. In my opinion the results obtained in the study are of scientific and practical interest. I'm accept this article after after remowed some editorial errors.
The article contains 37 literature items that have been used in the text.
The presentation style and format of the article are okey. The figures are appropriate and reflect the content of the article. The article is written in a clear manner. I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language.
There are several editorial errors that should be removed:
- Figure 1. - The description should be started with a capital letter.
- Figure 2. - Delete the full stop at the end of the description.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents interesting and relevant results, and can be considered for publication after corrections.
1- The discussions in the section (4.5. Prediction results visualization) should be improved.
a) The units of measurement must be included in the x and y axes;
b) In addition to figures 6c and 6d, figures with a zoom of the region of greatest interest must be included;
c) The contribution of the proposed technique in relation to the other techniques mentioned in the paper should also be included in more detail, considering the results of this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
