Ensemble Learning Based Surrogate Modeling for Gas Turbine Blisk Temperature Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temperature prediction in complex systems like gas turbines provides insights to temperature dependent damage accumulation but usually involves a huge computational cost. For simulation-based prognostics, the computational cost is a major hindrance to a real time implementation. In this work an ensemble learning based multistage surrogate modeling approach is investigated as a possible solution for reducing the computational cost. First the nodal temperature of a turbine blisk is predicted using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations for a limited number of engine operating points. Next the proposed ensemble learning based surrogate modeling approach is implemented to train surrogate models for every node defining the blisk. To achieve computational efficiency, the proposed surrogate modeling framework implements in sequence, clustering techniques for data analysis, multistage polynomial regression modeling, and ensemble learning based model combination. Finally the prediction errors are quantified using the leave-one-out cross-validation method. The result suggests that the computational time could be significantly reduced using the proposed ensemble learning based multistage surrogate modeling technique. The threshold value used to tune the polynomial regression model complexity is also shown to influence the time for surrogate model training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".