This framework improves vibration recognition in varied environments, indicating enhanced model generalization.
Distributed optical fiber vibration sensing (DVS) has shown strong potential in perimeter security, pipeline leakage monitoring, transportation safety, and structural health diagnostics owing to its high sensitivity, long-range coverage, and immunity to electromagnetic interference. However, severe cross-scene distribution mismatch is often encountered in real-world deployments: indoor, outdoor, and pipeline environments exhibit markedly different noise patterns and time–frequency characteristics, thereby degrading the generalization ability of models trained in a single scene. To address this challenge, we propose a Progressive Multi-Strategy Domain Alignment (PMSDA) framework for label-disjoint cross-scene vibration recognition. PMSDA uses a compact expansion–compression encoder together with complementary alignment mechanisms—maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), correlation alignment (CORAL), and adversarial domain discrimination—to learn a scene-robust latent space from a labeled indoor source and two unlabeled target domains (outdoor and pipeline) within a single alternating-training model. Because the fine-grained source and target label spaces are disjoint, PMSDA is formulated as a representation-transfer framework rather than a standard label-shared unsupervised domain adaptation method; target-domain recognition is therefore performed through domain-specific prototype clustering in the aligned latent space. On three representative scenes with nine event classes in total, PMSDA achieved 89.5% accuracy, 86.7% macro-F1, and 0.93 AUC for Indoor→Outdoor, and 85.8%, 84.7%, and 0.87, respectively, for Indoor→Pipeline, outperforming traditional feature+SVM/RF pipelines, CNN/ResNet baselines, and representation-transfer baselines adapted from DANN/CDAN/SHOT under the same evaluation protocol. These results indicate that PMSDA is a promising and effective framework for offline cross-scene DVS evaluation under disjoint target event sets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: