Refinement of Gaussian Process Regression Modeling of Pilot-Ignited Direct-Injected Natural Gas Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper presents a sensitivity-based input selection algorithm and a layered modeling approach for improving Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) modeling with hyperparameter optimization for engine model development with data sets of 120 training points or less. The models presented here are developed for a Pilot-Ignited Direct-Injected Natural Gas (PIDING) engine. A previously developed GPR modeling method with hyperparameter optimization produced some models with normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) over 0.2. The input selection method reduced the overall error by 0.6% to 18.85% while the layered modeling method improved the error for carbon monoxide (CO) by 52.6%, particulate matter (PM) by 32.5%, and nitrogen oxides (NO<sub>X</sub>) by 29.8%. These results demonstrate the importance of selecting only the most relevant inputs for machine learning models. This also shows that a layered approach to modeling could be implemented to further refine the inputs and provide a reduction in machine learning modeling error.</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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".