Hybrid Machine Learning Approaches and a Systematic Model Selection Process for Predicting Soot Emissions in Compression Ignition Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standards for emissions from diesel engines are becoming more stringent and accurate emission modeling is crucial in order to control the engine to meet these standards. Soot emissions are formed through a complex process and are challenging to model. A comprehensive analysis of diesel engine soot emissions modeling for control applications is presented in this paper. Physical, black-box, and gray-box models are developed for soot emissions prediction. Additionally, different feature sets based on the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) feature selection method and physical knowledge are examined to develop computationally efficient soot models with good precision. The physical model is a virtual engine modeled in GT-Power software that is parameterized using a portion of experimental data. Different machine learning methods, including Regression Tree (RT), Ensemble of Regression Trees (ERT), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) are used to develop the black-box models. The gray-box models include a combination of the physical and black-box models. A total of five feature sets and eight different machine learning methods are tested. An analysis of the accuracy, training time and test time of the models is performed using the K-means clustering algorithm. It provides a systematic way for categorizing the feature sets and methods based on their performance and selecting the best method for a specific application. According to the analysis, the black-box model consisting of GPR and feature selection by LASSO shows the best performance with test R2 of 0.96. The best gray-box model consists of SVM-based method with physical insight feature set along with LASSO for feature selection with test R2 of 0.97.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".