Graph models for engineering design: Model encoding, and fidelity evaluation based on dataset and other sources of knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Automatically extracting knowledge from small datasets with a valid causal ordering is a challenge for current state-of-the-art methods in machine learning. Extracting other type of knowledge is important but challenging for multiple engineering fields where data are scarce and difficult to collect. This research aims to address this problem by presenting a machine learning-based modeling framework leveraging the knowledge available in fundamental units of the variables recorded from data samples, to develop parsimonious, explainable, and graph-based simulation models during the early design stages. The developed approach is exemplified using an engineering design case study of a spherical body moving in a fluid. For the system of interest, two types of intricated models are generated by (1) using an automated selection of variables from datasets and (2) combining the automated extraction with supplementary knowledge about functions and dimensional homogeneity associated with the variables of the system. The effect of design, data, model, and simulation specifications on model fidelity are investigated. The study discusses the interrelationships between fidelity levels, variables, functions, and the available knowledge. The research contributes to the development of a fidelity measurement theory by presenting the premises of a standardized, modeling approach for transforming data into measurable level of fidelities for the produced models. This research shows that structured model building with a focus on model fidelity can support early design reasoning and decision making using for example the dimensional analysis conceptual modeling (DACM) framework.
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 | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".