Artificial neural networks and guided gene expression programming to predict wall pressure spectra beneath turbulent boundary layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficacy of two machine learning (ML) techniques, namely, artificial neural networks (ANNs) and gene expression programing (GEP), that use data-driven modeling to predict wall pressure spectra (WPS) underneath turbulent boundary layers. Different datasets of WPS from experiments and high-fidelity numerical simulations covering a wide range of pressure gradients and Reynolds numbers are considered. For both ML methods, an optimal hyperparameter environment is identified that yields accurate predictions. Despite a higher memory consumption, ANN models are faster to train and are much more accurate than the GEP models, yielding an order of magnitude lower logarithmic Mean Squared Error (lMSE) than GEP. Novel training schemes are devised to address the shortcomings of GEP. These include (a) ANN-assisted GEP to reduce the noise in the training data, (b) exploiting the low- and high-frequency trends to guide the GEP search, and (c) a stepped training strategy where the chromosomes are first trained on the canonical datasets, followed by the datasets with complex features. When compared to the baseline scheme, these training strategies accelerated convergence and resulted in models with superior accuracy (≈30% reduction in the median lMSE) and higher reliability (≈75% reduction in the spread of lMSE in the interquartile range). The final GEP models captured the complex trends of WPS across varying flow conditions and pressure gradients, surpassing the accuracy of Goody's 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".