MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221015755 · doi:10.3390/mca27020029

Applications of ANFIS-Type Methods in Simulation of Systems in Marine Environments

2022· article· en· W4221015755 on OpenAlexafffund
Aakanksha Jain, Iman Bahreini Toussi, Abdolmajid Mohammadian, Hossein Bonakdari, Majid Sartaj

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical and Computational Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemParticle swarm optimizationGenetic algorithmComputer scienceEvolutionary algorithmAdaptabilityAlgorithmMarine engineeringSimulationMachine learningEngineeringArtificial intelligenceFuzzy logicEcologyFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ANFIS-type algorithms have been used in various modeling and simulation problems. With the help of algorithms with more accuracy and adaptability, it is possible to obtain better real-life emulating models. A critical environmental problem is the discharge of saline industrial effluents in the form of buoyant jets into water bodies. Given the potentially harmful effects of the discharge effluents from desalination plants on the marine environment and the coastal ecosystem, minimizing such an effect is crucial. Hence, it is important to design the outfall system properly to reduce these impacts. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, a study that formulates the effluent discharge to find an optimum numerical model under the conditions considered here using AI methods has not been completed before. In this study, submerged discharges, specifically, negatively buoyant jets are modeled. The objective of this study is to compare various artificial intelligence algorithms along with multivariate regression models to find the best fit model emulating effluent discharge and determine the model with less computational time. This is achieved by training and testing the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), ANFIS-Genetic Algorithm (GA), ANFIS-Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and ANFIS-Firefly Algorithm (FFA) models with input parameters, which are obtained by using the realizable k-ε turbulence model, and simulated parameters, which are obtained after modeling the turbulent jet using the OpenFOAM simulation platform. A comparison of the realizable k-ε turbulence model outputs and AI algorithms’ outputs is conducted in this study. Statistical parameters such as least error, coefficient of determination (R2), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Average Absolute Deviation (AED) are measured to evaluate the performance of the models. In this work, it is found that ANFIS-PSO performs better compared to the other four models and the multivariate regression model. It is shown that this model provides better R2, MAE, and AED, however, the non-hybrid ANFIS model provides reasonably acceptable results with lower computational costs. The results of the study demonstrate an error of 6.908% as the best-case scenario in the AI models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical and Computational ApplicationsSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207