MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307171308 · doi:10.3390/su142113788

Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis of Deep Learning-Based Pipe Burst Detection Model for Multiregional Water Supply Networks

2022· article· en· W4307171308 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hyoung-Suk Kim, Dooyong Choi, Do-Guen Yoo, Kyoung-Pil Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Environment - Saskatchewan
KeywordsHyperparameterSensitivity (control systems)Hyperparameter optimizationComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceDeep learningData setMachine learningSet (abstract data type)Activation functionRectifier (neural networks)Function (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Data miningRecurrent neural networkEngineeringSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a deep learning model, the effect of the model may vary depending on the setting of the hyperparameters. Despite the importance of such hyperparameter determination, most previous studies related to burst detection models of the water supply pipe network used hyperparameters applied in other fields as-is or made a trial-and-error setting based on experience, which is a limitation. In this paper, a study was conducted on the deep learning hyperparameter determination of a deep neural network (DNN)-based real-time detection model of pipe burst accidents. The pipe burst model predicted water pressure by using operation data in units of 1 min, and the data period applied for the model training was less than 1 month (1, 2, and 3 weeks) in order to consider frequent changes in the system. A sensitivity analysis was first performed on the type of activation function and the period of the learning data, which may have different effects depending on the characteristics of the target problem. The number of hidden layers related to the network structure and the number of neurons in each hidden layer were set as hyperparameters for additional sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis results were derived and compared using four quantified prediction error indicators. In addition, the model running time was analyzed to evaluate the practical applicability of the development model. From the results, it was confirmed that excellent effects could be expected if using a rectifier function as the activation function, 144 nodes in the hidden layer, which is eight times the number of nodes in the input layer, and four hidden layers. Additionally, by analyzing the appropriate period of training data required for model pressure prediction through prediction error and driving time, it was confirmed that it was most appropriate to use the data of two weeks. By applying the hyperparameter values determined through detailed sensitivity analysis and by applying the data of one week including actual burst accidents to the built-up pressure prediction model, the accident detection and predictive performance of the model were verified. The rational determination of the period of input factors for the optimal hyperparameter setting and model building, as in this study, is very necessary and very important as it can serve to ensure the continuity of the operation effects of the deep learning model.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207