MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of supervised machine learning regression models for CFD-based surrogate modelling in indoor airflow field reconstruction

2024· article· en· W4403712151 on OpenAlexaff
LI Xue-ren, Weijie Sun, Chao Qin, Yihuan Yan, Liwei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding and Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsAirflowRegression analysisComputer scienceField (mathematics)Machine learningEnvironmental scienceRegressionSurrogate modelArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringStatisticsMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast and reliable prediction of indoor airflow distribution is critical for indoor environment control. While neural networks (NN), often interchangeably referred to as Back Propagation Neural Networks (BPNNs), are popular for airflow predictions, optimising these models is challenging due to their ”black box” nature and complex network structures. This study explores alternative robust regression models, including decision-tree-based models (e.g., XGBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest) and Support Vector Regression (SVR), for predicting indoor airflow. Two BPNN structures were initially developed to evaluate feasibility of NN models. BPNN A was trained using airflow velocities from two inlets as input neurons to directly predict the airflow velocity distribution within the domain. BPNN B was trained additionally with spatial information, including space samples and boundary wall data. Higher-dimensional training structures of BPNN B were applied to decision tree-based models and SVR to assess their capability in predicting non-linear airflow patterns. Results indicated that BPNN A achieved the highest accuracy, while the inclusion of higher-dimensional data in BPNN B led to decreased accuracy. Among all decision-tree-based models, XGBoost demonstrated the greatest potential, achieving an R 2 above 99.5% and predictive errors below 10%. XGBoost also outperformed both BPNN models in speed, being 15.78 times faster than BPNN A and 252 times faster than BPNN B. The interpretability of XGBoost was further explored by analysing feature importance, which helps identify the most influential input variables while predicting the airflow velocity. This analysis is expected to offer an enhanced understanding of boundary conditions leading to optimised indoor environment strategy. • Rapid indoor airflow reconstruction was performed with machine learning models. • Lower-dimensional BPNN exhibited superior performance with errors less than 3%. • XGBoost reliably captured most airflow field features, with errors mostly less than 10%. • Decision tree models are 15.78-252 times faster than BPNN models. • Support vector regression is not a promising tool for airflow reconstruction.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding and EnvironmentSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207