Physics-Informed Deep Learning for Bearing Remaining Useful Life: Adaptive Paris-Law Regularization with Gaussian Processes
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimation of remaining useful life is essential for predictive maintenance and for preventing costly unplanned downtime in industrial assets. However, state-of-the-art deep learning models often behave as black boxes, offer limited interpretability, and can degrade under noise, data scarcity, or distributional shifts. Many physics-informed neural networks address this by embedding governing equations, but they typically fix physical coefficients a priori, which can bias predictions when units, loads, or operating conditions change. This work presents an adaptive physics-informed deep learning framework that couples sequence learning with a fracture mechanics-based structure. For each degradation sequence, Paris-law parameters are estimated by combining Gaussian process regression on finite-difference rates with constrained nonlinear least squares. This procedure yields sequence-specific and physically meaningful regularization. The Paris-induced decay is implemented as a soft residual using a Huber penalty and an annealed curriculum. The strength of this residual term, along with the model width and learning rate, is selected by Bayesian optimization to balance data fit and physical plausibility. Predictive uncertainty is quantified using deep ensembles with optional split-conformal calibration, and a physics consistency score is defined to measure adherence to the underlying deterioration law. Experiments on the FEMTO PRONOSTIA bearing dataset show that treating physics as a learnable, data-adaptive prior, rather than a static constraint, produces accurate, interpretable, and robust remaining useful life predictions. This design makes the proposed approach suitable for deployment in diverse industrial environments.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference · Model Reduction and Neural Networks · Machine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (73)
Show source-provided references
1. Taşcı B, Omar A, Ayvaz S (2023) Remaining useful lifetime prediction for predictive maintenance in manufacturing. Comput Ind Eng 184:10956610.1016/j.cie.2023.109566 ↗
2. Nunes P, Santos J, Rocha E (2023) Challenges in predictive maintenance—a review. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 40:53–6710.1016/j.cirpj.2022.11.004 ↗
3. Berghout T, Benbouzid M (2022) A systematic guide for predicting remaining useful life with machine learning. Electronics 11(7):112510.3390/electronics11071125 ↗
4. Magadán L, Granda JC, Suárez FJ (2024) Robust prediction of remaining useful lifetime of bearings using deep learning. Eng Appl Artif Intell 130:10769010.1016/j.engappai.2023.107690 ↗
5. Wang C, Jiang W, Shi L, Zhang L (2025) Rolling bearing remaining useful life prediction using deep learning based on high-quality representation. Sci Rep 15(1):822810.1038/s41598-025-93165-4 ↗
6. Ferreira C, Gonçalves G (2022) Remaining useful life prediction and challenges: a literature review on the use of machine learning methods. J Manuf Syst 63:550–56210.1016/j.jmsy.2022.05.010 ↗
7. Liu Y, Sun J, Shang Y, Zhang X, Ren S, Wang D (2023) A novel remaining useful life prediction method for lithium-ion battery based on long short-term memory network optimized by improved sparrow search algorithm. J Energy Storage 61:10664510.1016/j.est.2023.106645 ↗
8. Ramezani SB, Cummins L, Killen B, Carley R, Amirlatifi A, Rahimi S, Seale M, Bian L (2023) Scalability, explainability and performance of data-driven algorithms in predicting the remaining useful life: a comprehensive review. IEEE Access 11:41741–4176910.1109/ACCESS.2023.3267960 ↗
9. Lei Y, Li N, Guo L, Li N, Yan T, Lin J (2018) Machinery health prognostics: a systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction. Mech Syst Signal Process 104:799–83410.1016/j.ymssp.2017.11.016 ↗
10. Kumar S, Raj KK, Cirrincione M, Cirrincione G, Franzitta V, Kumar RR (2024) A comprehensive review of remaining useful life estimation approaches for rotating machinery. Energies 17(22):553810.3390/en17225538 ↗
11. Chen X, Ma M, Zhao Z, Zhai Z, Mao Z (2022) Physics-informed deep neural network for bearing prognosis with multisensory signals. J Dyn Monit Diagn 1:200–207
12. Ma L, Tian J, Zhang T, Guo Q, Hu C (2024) Accurate and efficient remaining useful life prediction of batteries enabled by physics-informed machine learning. J Energy Chem 91:512–52110.1016/j.jechem.2023.12.043 ↗
13. Wang H, Li B, Gong J, Xuan F-Z (2023) Machine learning-based fatigue life prediction of metal materials: perspectives of physics-informed and data-driven hybrid methods. Eng Fract Mech 284:10924210.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109242 ↗
14. Paris PC, Erdogan F (1963) A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic Eng 85(4):528–53410.1115/1.3656900 ↗
15. Kebir T, Benguediab M, Imad A (2017) A model for fatigue crack growth in the Paris regime under the variability of cyclic hardening and elastic properties. Fatigue Aircr Struct 9:117–13510.1515/fas-2017-0010 ↗
16. Nectoux P, Gouriveau R, Medjaher K, Ramasso E, Chebel-Morello B, Zerhouni N, Varnier C (2012) Pronostia: An experimental platform for bearings accelerated degradation tests. In: IEEE international conference on prognostics and health management, PHM’12, pp 1–8. IEEE Catalog Number: CPF12PHM-CDR
17. Achouch M, Dimitrova M, Ziane K, Sattarpanah Karganroudi S, Dhouib R, Ibrahim H, Adda M (2022) On predictive maintenance in industry 4.0: overview, models, and challenges. Appl Sci 12(16):808110.3390/app12168081 ↗
18. Zio E (2022) Prognostics and health management (PHM): where are we and where do we (need to) go in theory and practice. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 218:10811910.1016/j.ress.2021.108119 ↗
19. Zhang W, Yang D, Wang H (2019) Data-driven methods for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment: a survey. IEEE Syst J 13(3):2213–222710.1109/JSYST.2019.2905565 ↗
20. Jiang F, Hou X, Xia M (2025) Spatio-temporal attention-based hidden physics-informed neural network for remaining useful life prediction. Adv Eng Inform 63:10295810.1016/j.aei.2024.102958 ↗
21. Fernández J, Chiachío J, Barros J, Chiachío M, Kulkarni CS (2024) Physics-guided recurrent neural network trained with approximate Bayesian computation: a case study on structural response prognostics. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 243:10982210.1016/j.ress.2023.109822 ↗
22. Asrav T, Aydin E (2023) Physics-informed recurrent neural networks and hyper-parameter optimization for dynamic process systems. Comput Chem Eng 173:10819510.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108195 ↗
23. Lin T, Song L, Cui L, Wang H (2024) Advancing RUL prediction in mechanical systems: a hybrid deep learning approach utilizing non-full lifecycle data. Adv Eng Inform 61:10252410.1016/j.aei.2024.102524 ↗
24. Bharatheedasan K, Maity T, Kumaraswamidhas L, Durairaj M (2025) Enhanced fault diagnosis and remaining useful life prediction of rolling bearings using a hybrid multilayer perceptron and lstm network model. Alex Eng J 115:355–36910.1016/j.aej.2024.12.007 ↗
25. Shah SS, Daoliang T, Kumar SC (2024) RUL forecasting for wind turbine predictive maintenance based on deep learning. Heliyon 10(20):e3926810.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39268 ↗
26. Wang J, Lu Z, Zhou J, Schröder K-U, Liang X (2025) A novel remaining useful life prediction method under multiple operating conditions based on attention mechanism and deep learning. Adv Eng Inform 64:10308310.1016/j.aei.2024.103083 ↗
27. Yong H, Qun C, Pengcheng X, Chengliang L (2024) Remaining useful life prediction using physics-informed neural network with self-attention mechanism and deep separable convolutional network. J Adv Manuf Sci Technol 4(4):2024018–2024018
28. Weikun D, Nguyen KT, Medjaher K, Christian G, Morio J (2023) Physics-informed machine learning in prognostics and health management: state of the art and challenges. Appl Math Model 124:325–35210.1016/j.apm.2023.07.011 ↗
29. Meng C, Griesemer S, Cao D, Seo S, Liu Y (2025) When physics meets machine learning: a survey of physics-informed machine learning. Mach Learn Comput Sci Eng 1(1):1–2310.1007/s44379-025-00016-0 ↗
30. Wu Y, Sicard B, Gadsden SA (2024) Physics-informed machine learning: a comprehensive review on applications in anomaly detection and condition monitoring. Expert Syst Appl 255:12467810.1016/j.eswa.2024.124678 ↗
31. Xu Y, Kohtz S, Boakye J, Gardoni P, Wang P (2023) Physics-informed machine learning for reliability and systems safety applications: state of the art and challenges. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 230:10890010.1016/j.ress.2022.108900 ↗
32. Kashinath K, Mustafa M, Albert A, Wu J, Jiang C, Esmaeilzadeh S, Azizzadenesheli K, Wang R, Chattopadhyay A, Singh A et al (2021) Physics-informed machine learning. Philos Trans Math Phys Eng Sci 379(2194):1–36
33. Davini D, Samineni B, Thomas BJ, Tran H, Zhu C (2022) Using physics-informed regularization to improve extrapolation capabilities of artificial neural networks. In: 2022 virtual joint mathematics meetings (JMM 2022). AMS
34. Beucler T, Pritchard M, Rasp S, Ott J, Baldi P, Gentine P (2021) Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical systems. Phys Rev Lett 126(9):09830210.1103/PhysRevLett.126.098302 ↗
35. Márquez-Neila P, Salzmann M, Fua P (2017) Imposing hard constraints on deep networks: promises and limitations. arXiv:1706.02025
36. Daw A, Thomas RQ, Carey CC, Read JS, Appling AP, Karpatne A (2020) Physics-guided architecture (pga) of neural networks for quantifying uncertainty in lake temperature modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Siam international conference on data mining, pp 532–540. SIAM10.1137/1.9781611976236.60 ↗
37. Shi Y, Wei P, Feng K, Feng D-C, Beer M (2025) A survey on machine learning approaches for uncertainty quantification of engineering systems. Mach Learn Comput Sci Eng 1(1):1–3910.1007/s44379-024-00011-x ↗
38. Chu M (2024) Physics based & machine learning methods for uncertainty estimation in turbulence modeling. arXiv:2407.10615
39. Nagaraj S, Hickok T (2024) Physics informed machine learning (PIML) methods for estimating the remaining useful lifetime (RUL) of aircraft engines. In: 2024 AIAA DATC/IEEE 43rd digital avionics systems conference (DASC), pp 1–7. IEEE10.1109/DASC62030.2024.10749490 ↗
40. Najera-Flores DA, Hu Z, Chadha M, Todd MD (2023) A physics-constrained Bayesian neural network for battery remaining useful life prediction. Appl Math Model 122:42–5910.1016/j.apm.2023.05.038 ↗
41. Shang J, Xu D, Qiu H, Jiang C, Gao L (2025) Domain generalization for rotating machinery real-time remaining useful life prediction via multi-domain orthogonal degradation feature exploration. Mech Syst Signal Process 223:11192410.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111924 ↗
42. Berghout T, Mouss L-H, Bentrcia T, Benbouzid M (2021) A semi-supervised deep transfer learning approach for rolling-element bearing remaining useful life prediction. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 37(2):1200–121010.1109/TEC.2021.3116423 ↗
43. Li X, Zhang W, Ding Q (2019) Deep learning-based remaining useful life estimation of bearings using multi-scale feature extraction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 182:208–21810.1016/j.ress.2018.11.011 ↗
44. Li X, Zhang W, Ma H, Luo Z, Li X (2020) Data alignments in machinery remaining useful life prediction using deep adversarial neural networks. Knowl-Based Syst 197:10584310.1016/j.knosys.2020.105843 ↗
45. Wan S, Li X, Zhang Y, Liu S, Hong J, Wang D (2022) Bearing remaining useful life prediction with convolutional long short-term memory fusion networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 224:10852810.1016/j.ress.2022.108528 ↗
46. Neupane D, Bouadjenek MR, Dazeley R, Aryal S (2025) Data-driven machinery fault diagnosis: a comprehensive review. Neurocomputing 627:12958810.1016/j.neucom.2025.129588 ↗
47. Suh S, Jang J, Won S, Jha MS, Lee YO (2020) Supervised health stage prediction using convolutional neural networks for bearing wear. Sensors 20(20):584610.3390/s20205846 ↗
48. Wen L, Yang G, Hu L, Yang C, Feng K (2024) A new unsupervised health index estimation method for bearings early fault detection based on gaussian mixture model. Eng Appl Artif Intell 128:10756210.1016/j.engappai.2023.107562 ↗
49. Dhungana H, Rykkje T, Lundervold AS (2025) Bearing prognostics using the PRONOSTIA data: a comparative study. IEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3551772 ↗
50. Yu Y, Si X, Hu C, Zhang J (2019) A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures. Neural Comput 31(7):1235–127010.1162/neco_a_01199 ↗
51. Sherstinsky A (2020) Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (RNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) network. Physica D 404:13230610.1016/j.physd.2019.132306 ↗
52. Belgacem AM, Hadef M, Djerdir A, Bekakra Y, Ali E, Elsayed SK, Ghoneim SS, Abdelwahab SAM (2025) Fault diagnosis of power converters in pmsg-based wind energy conversion system using capsule network and bidirectional long short-term memory. Electr Eng, pp 1–2110.1007/s00202-025-03116-5 ↗
53. Yang M, Wang J (2022) Adaptability of financial time series prediction based on bilstm. Procedia Comput Sci 199:18–2510.1016/j.procs.2022.01.003 ↗
54. Pugno N, Ciavarella M, Cornetti P, Carpinteri A (2006) A generalized Paris’ law for fatigue crack growth. J Mech Phys Solids 54(7):1333–134910.1016/j.jmps.2006.01.007 ↗
55. Paris PC, Sih GC (1964) Stress analysis of cracks. Technical report10.1520/STP26584S ↗
56. Messiha M, Wiener J, Arbeiter F, Pinter G (2024) Data-driven evaluation of the Paris’ law parameters in polyethylene pipe grades—increasing the precision of fracture mechanical lifetime estimation. Eng Fract Mech 311:11054010.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110540 ↗
57. Tada H, Paris PC, Irwin GR (1973) The stress analysis of cracks handbook, Del Research Corporation
58. Willenborg J (1971) A crack growth retardation model using an effective stress intensity concept. Technical Report10.21236/ADA956517 ↗
59. Huber PJ (1964) Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math Stat 35(1):73–10110.1214/aoms/1177703732 ↗
60. Seeger M (2004) Gaussian processes for machine learning. Int J Neural Syst 14(02):69–10610.1142/S0129065704001899 ↗
61. Elber W, et al (1971) The significance of fatigue crack closure10.1520/STP26680S ↗
62. Ritchie RO (1999) Mechanisms of fatigue-crack propagation in ductile and brittle solids. Int J Fract 100:55–8310.1023/A:1018655917051 ↗
63. NASA Johnson Space Center and Southwest Research Institute: NASGRO Fracture Mechanics and Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis Program: Reference Manual (2020) NASA Johnson space center and southwest research institute. Version 7:x
64. Brighenti R, Carpinteri A, Corbari N (2013) Damage mechanics and Paris regime in fatigue life assessment of metals. Int J Press Vess Pip 104:57–6810.1016/j.ijpvp.2013.01.005 ↗
65. Sun B, Zeng S, Kang R, Pecht MG (2012) Benefits and challenges of system prognostics. IEEE Trans Reliab 61(2):323–33510.1109/TR.2012.2194173 ↗
66. Zhang C, Lim P et al (2020) A review on deep learning applications in prognostics and health management. IEEE Access 8:20030–20049
67. Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP (2012) Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 25
68. Raissi M, Perdikaris P, Karniadakis GE (2019) Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear pdes. J Comput Phys 378:686–70710.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 ↗
69. Rasmussen CE, Williams C (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning, The MIT Press, Cambridge, vol 32, p 6810.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 ↗
70. Lakshminarayanan B, Pritzel A, Blundell C (2017) Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 30
71. Angelopoulos AN, Bates S (2023) A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. Found Trends Mach Learn 16(4):494–59110.1561/2200000101 ↗
72. Wilson AG, Izmailov P (2020) Bayesian deep learning and a probabilistic perspective of generalization. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 33:4697–4708
73. Ovadia Y, Fertig E, Ren J, Nado Z, Sculley D, Nowozin S, Dillon J, Lakshminarayanan B, Snoek J (2019) Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 32