Comparison of Support Vector Regression and Random Forest Regression Performance in Vehicle Fuel Consumption Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting vehicle fuel consumption is an important aspect in improving energy efficiency and supporting sustainable transportation. This study aims to compare the performance of Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Random Forest Regression (RFR) algorithms in predicting combined vehicle fuel consumption (COMBINED, a combination of 55% urban and 45% highway). The Canadian government's Fuel Consumption Ratings dataset was used, with 2015-2023 data (9,185 entries) for training and testing, and 2024 data (764 entries) for further testing. Pre-processing involved StandardScaler for numerical features and OneHotEncoder for categorical features, followed by hyperparameter optimization using Grid Search, resulting in optimal parameters: SVR (C=100, epsilon=0.5, gamma=1) and RFR (n_estimators=200, max_depth=None, min_samples_split=2). Results show RFR is superior with R2 0.8845, RMSE 0.9671, and MAE 0.6566, compared to SVR with R2 0.8648, RMSE 1.0462, and MAE 0.7150. Evaluation on 2024 data and visualization of error distribution corroborate the superiority of RFR. This study concludes RFR is more effective for COMBINED prediction, although SVR is competitive post-optimization, and contributes to the selection of machine learning models for green vehicle technology.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".