MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408430878 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-14039

A Hybrid Machine Learning Model For Ship Speed Through Water: Solve And Predict

2025· preprint· en· W4408430878 on OpenAlexaff
Ayoub Atanane, Zakarya Elmimouni, Loubna Benabbou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maritime transport industry faces a significant challenge: reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50% compared to 2008 levels. A crucial factor in calculating and optimizing these emissions is accurately predicting ship speed through water. While various models exist, few effectively combine both physical principles and machine learning approaches, leading to limitations in prediction accuracy.The paper proposes a hybrid model with two main components: ''Solve'' Component: A physics-based approach that uses a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) to determine the theoretical speed a ship would achieve in calm water conditions, based on fundamental physical principles and equations. ''Predict'' Component: A data-driven approach that takes the theoretical calm water speed and adjusts it based on real-world conditions using machine learning algorithms, producing actual speed predictions.The Solve Phase centers around a differential equation relating three key parameters: propulsion power (P), draft (T), and speed through calm water (Vw), the equation takes the form:The model uses a PINN to solve a differential equation that links propulsion power (P), draft (T), and calm water speed (Vw) to generate initial speed estimates. The PINN uses a loss function that incorporates both initial conditions and differential equation residuals. A major challenge arises because Vw is theoretical and cannot be directly measured. This issue is addressed using historical data by identifying periods when sea conditions were calm to use as training data.The model creates a bridge between its solve and predict phases. In the first approach, focused on training data generation, the system utilizes the trained PINN to generate collocation points. From these points, it creates training triplets consisting of propulsion power (Pi), draft (Ti), and calm water speed (Vwi). This approach uses a straightforward mean squared error loss function to train the neural network. The second approach takes a different path by using propulsion power (P) and draft (T) as direct inputs to the neural network. What makes this approach unique is that it incorporates the PINN directly into the loss function. This integration allows physical principles from the differential equation to directly influence the predictions, creating a stronger connection between the physical model and the machine learning component.The predict phase begins by taking the calm water speed predictions generated from the solve phase and enhances them by incorporating various real-world factors that affect ship movement. These factors include maritime conditions, meteorological data, and current conditions, providing a comprehensive view of the actual sailing environment. To process this combined data, we use machine learning algorithms such as Xgboost. The final output of this phase is the real speed through water (Vwr), which represents a more realistic prediction that accounts for all environmental factors affecting the ship's speed.The model offers a groundbreaking approach to maritime speed prediction by generalizing across vessel types and integrating physical principles with machine learning. By incorporating operational and meteorological data, it provides more accurate speed predictions that optimize fuel consumption and support the maritime industry's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, bridging environmental protection with operational efficiency.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaritime Navigation and SafetyFrench-language works237,207