MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283703324 · doi:10.3390/jmse10070899

The Gradient-Boosting Method for Tackling High Computing Demand in Underwater Acoustic Propagation Modeling

2022· article· en· W4283703324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominic Lagrois, Tyler R. Bonnell, Ankita Shukla, Clément Chion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoosting (machine learning)Computer scienceGround truthGradient boostingSound propagationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmReal-time computingAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agent-based models return spatiotemporal information used to process time series of specific parameters for specific individuals called “agents”. For complex, advanced and detailed models, this typically comes at the expense of high computing times and requires access to important computing resources. This paper provides an example on how machine learning and artificial intelligence can help predict an agent-based model’s output values at regular intervals without having to rely on time-consuming numerical calculations. Gradient-boosting XGBoost under GNU package’s R was used in the social-ecological agent-based model 3MTSim to interpolate, in the time domain, sound pressure levels received at the agents’ positions that were occupied by the endangered St. Lawrence Estuary and Saguenay Fjord belugas and caused by anthropomorphic noise of nearby transiting merchant vessels. A mean error of 3.23 ± 3.76(1σ) dB on received sound pressure levels was predicted when compared to ground truth values that were processed using rigorous, although time-consuming, numerical algorithms. The computing time gain was significant, i.e., it was estimated to be 10-fold higher than the ground truth simulation, whilst maintaining the original temporal resolution.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207