kinds of representative datasets. We collected nine commonly used datasets which all have specific labels and explanations in addition to the PHM 2012 bearing dataset and IMS bearing dataset, so PHM 2012 and IMS are not suitable for fault classification that requires labels. To sum up, this paper uses seven datasets to verify the performance of models introduced in Section \[S:3\]. The description of all these datasets is listed as follows.

CWRU Bearing Dataset
--------------------

CWRU datasets were provided by the Case Western Reserve University Bearing Data Center [@CWRU]. Vibration signals were collected at 12 kHz or 48 kHz for normal bearings and damaged bearings with single-point defects under four different motor loads. Within each working condition, single-point faults were introduced with fault diameters of 0.007, 0.014, and 0.021 inches on the rolling element, the inner ring, and the outer ring, respectively. In this paper, we use the data collected from the drive end, and the sampling frequency is equivalent to 12 kHz. In Table \[Tab\_1\], one health state bearing and three fault locations, including the inner ring fault, the rolling element fault, and the outer ring fault, are classified into ten categories (one health state and 9 fault states) 