MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173589686 · doi:10.4271/2021-24-0076

A Random Forest Algorithmic Approach to Predicting Particulate Emissions from a Highly Boosted GDI Engine

2021· article· en· W3173589686 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Papaioannou, Xiaohang Fang, Felix Leach, Andrew Lewis, Sam Akehurst, James Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRandom forestParticulatesComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Particulate emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines continue to be a topic of substantial research interest. Forthcoming regulation both in the USA and the EU will further reduce their emission and drive innovation. Substantial research effort is spent undertaking experiments to understand, characterize, and research particle number (PN) emissions from engines and vehicles. Recent advances in computing power, data storage, and understanding of artificial intelligence algorithms now mean that these are becoming an important tool in engine research. In this work a random forest (RF) algorithm is used for the prediction of PN emissions from a highly boosted (up to 32 bar BMEP) GDI engine. Particle size, concentration, and the accumulation mode geometric standard deviation (GSD) are all predicted by the model. The results are analysed and an in depth study on parameter importance is carried out. The Random Forest algorithm is used as an estimator and the various engine parameters are ranked with a permutation feature importance technique using mean squared error as a performance metric. The results showed that from 82 model parameters only 17 are important for predicting the above PN emission parameters. Moreover, the permutation importance algorithm showed that when the parameters are reduced to 9 the model accuracy is improved due to a reduction in model variance. Overall, the model shows excellent predictive performance for all three parameters even when an independent dataset is used.</div></div>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207