A novel deep learning approach for investigating liquid fuel injection in combustion system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intricacies and instability of introducing cryogenic propellants into the combustion system have piqued the curiosity of scientists studying the procedure. The latest innovation is utilizing data-driven machine learning and deep learning approaches to gain deeper insights into the related difficulties. However, the current work serves as a baseline for future research because relatively few studies have used data-driven methodologies to assess the temperature of liquid fuel injections in combustion systems. The performance of Linear Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Extra Trees Regressor (ETR), Polynomial Regression (PR), Support Vector Regressor (SVR), Decision Tree Regressor (DTR), Gradient Boost Regressor (GBR), XGB Regressor (XGBoost), AdaBoost Regressor (ABR), K-Neighbors Regressor (KNR), Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM), Bi-LSTM (Bi-directional Long-Short Term Memory) has all been investigated in this study. The study also suggested a Fully Connected Neural Network (FCNN) to examine its performance and paired it with an Extra Tree Regressor (ETR). The coupled FCNN and Extra Tree Regressor outperform the other algorithms with a Mean Square Error (MSE) of 0.0000005062, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.00071148, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.00020672, and R-squared (R2) value of 0.99998689. Linear Regression, Polynomial Regression, and Support Vector Regressor are found to be the least-performing algorithms. The current work uses machine learning and deep learning methods to make data-driven decisions for liquid fuel injection in the combustion system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".