MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414471992 · doi:10.2166/hydro.2025.061

Enhancing accuracy and efficiency in calibration of drinking water distribution networks through evolutionary artificial neural networks and expert systems

2025· article· en· W4414471992 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Gómez, Kimberly Solon, Pieter-Jan Haest, Mark Morley, Ingmar Nopens, Elena Torfs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydroinformatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationAdaptabilityBenchmark (surveying)Generalizability theoryArtificial neural networkExpert system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The calibration of drinking water distribution network (DWDN) models is essential to ensure accurate simulation, efficient operation, and informed decision-making. As DWDNs evolve due to seasonal changes, shifting demands, or infrastructure updates, maintaining model accuracy over time becomes increasingly important. However, limited measurement availability and high model complexity make calibration a persistent challenge. To address this, ES-NEAT is introduced, an automatic calibration methodology that combines expert systems (ES) with neuro-evolution of augmenting topologies (NEAT). The method integrates expert knowledge with neural network evolution to efficiently solve high-dimensional calibration problems. ES-NEAT achieves high accuracy under sparse data conditions while keeping computational costs moderate. It also stores calibration knowledge in a structured format, enabling faster and more consistent recalibration over time. This adaptability supports long-term model reliability. The methodology was validated on a benchmark network and a real DWDN in Flanders, Belgium, demonstrating robust performance, efficient convergence, and generalizability across calibration scenarios.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydroinformaticsSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207