Whitening CNN-Based Rotor System Fault Diagnosis Model Features

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper investigates the application of network deconvolution over batch normalization to improve intelligent fault detection systems. 

Comparison is conducted over three CNN architectures and the authors have demonstrated satisfactory results.

The highlight of the paper is that the math is presented correctly, with nice experiments and ablation studies. The authors have implemented the 1d version of network deconvolution.

The downside is that the novelty of the paper is somewhat limited but I think it is fine for an application paper.

Minor comments:

Fig 1 seems difficult to understand and is misleading to me. The authors should try to follow linear algebra or matrix multiplication rules.

Eq 9  -->(X-mu) Cov^(-0.5) 

In Sec 3 the authors should provide some plots to illustrate the network architecture.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, it seems to us that you reviewed our paper with care and attention.

Please see the attachment to see our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

(i) Please give a detailed background about what researchers have done regarding the incomplete normalisation of batch-normalisation.

(ii) I can see unstable results of NB-based model, which can affect the performance of the approach.

(iii)The diagnosis accuracy seems not have a remarkable improvement. So what is the most improtant contributions of the approach.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Novelties could be summarized in Abstract.
2. More CNN based fault classification methods should be discussed in Introduction, for example “Deep convolutional neural network based planet bearing fault classification”, et al.
3. The motivation of the proposed method should further discuss in Introduction.
4. In Fig.5, please explain why the WDCNN(ND) model is not good compared with WDCNN in first three results. Same question in Fig.5.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think it can be published.

Author Response

The updated manuscript with yellow highlights have now been uploaded.

Reviewer 3 Report

The cover letter shows that the changes in the revised paper have been highlighted with yellow. However, there is no yellow part and I cannot locate the revised content in revised paper.

Author Response

Hello,

Apparently the authors understood the submission system incorrectly and the manuscript with yellow highlights was uploaded to the wrong place.

We are trying to submit the manuscript with changes highlighted with yellow again. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no more comments for current version.