Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Probabilistic Prediction of Ship Maneuvering Motion using Ensemble Learning with Feedforward Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an ensemble of feedforward neural networks, propagated through TS∞ particle sampling, makes ship maneuvering predictions whose spread tracks epistemic uncertainty, and that worst-case particle scores reduce…

desk verdict A useful but uncalibrated application of deep ensembles to ship maneuvering SI: the correlation result is real, the uncertainty claim needs a coverage test before it can carry safety weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00363 v1 pith:EL55BJW4 submitted 2024-11-30 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Kouki Wakita , Youhei Akimoto , Atsuo Maki This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY
keywords shipmaneuveringmotionensemblelearningepistemicuncertaintynon-parametricsystemidentificationfeedforwardneuralnetworkstrajectorysamplingprobabilisticpredictionautonomoussurfaceships
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to give a non-parametric ship maneuvering model an honest sense of its own ignorance. The proposed method trains many feedforward neural networks on the same trajectory data, relying only on random initialization and mini-batch shuffling for variety, and then propagates particles through randomly selected models. The claim is that the resulting spread is small where training data is dense and large where the trajectory leaves the training distribution, so the spread behaves like epistemic uncertainty. The authors test this on simulated model-ship data, training only on berthing maneuvers and predicting zigzag, turning, and random maneuvers, and on real full-scale port navigation data. They also show that using the worst predicted particle when scoring heading-keeping PD control reduces the chance of overestimating control performance relative to the true system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ensemble model set Φ ≡ {fθ | θ ∈ Θ} of M feedforward neural network maneuvering models, each mapping the velocity, actuator, and apparent-wind state to the acceleration vector ν̇, trained by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the observed kinematic trajectories. The prediction mechanism is particle propagation with trajectory sampling: P particles are propagated, and each particle uses a model drawn from Φ, either once per particle (TS∞) or resampled at each time step (TS1). Because the model set is interpreted as a plausible sample from the function space of the true time-invariant maneuvering model, the covariance of the predicted particles is the epistemic uncertainty estimate. TS∞ is preferred because it does not average out predicted states across models, and the paper's empirical signature is that TS∞ shows a smaller correlation between Euclidean bias and Mahalanobis distance, meaning the variance grows when the bias grows.

What would settle it

Take the model-scale simulator and generate test trajectories that intentionally leave the berthing state distribution, such as sustained sway velocities beyond those in DTrain-B. If, over those trajectories, the ensemble's particle covariance stays small while the mean error grows, or the ground truth falls outside the predicted 95% interval at a rate far from 5%, then the spread is not tracking epistemic uncertainty. The paper's own Fig. 15 offers a partial check: with M=75, overestimation near the PD gain boundary persists, so a fully calibrated uncertainty would remain in doubt until that residual bias is explained by measurement noise rather than missing model uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an ensemble of feedforward neural networks trained by maximum likelihood on trajectory data can quantify epistemic uncertainty in ship maneuvering models. In Section 7 the authors state the key observed relationship: when the bias between the predicted particle set and the true value was small, the variance was also small, and when the bias was large, the variance tended to increase, with this trend more pronounced for the TS∞ trajectory sampling method than for TS1. The paper further claims that considering the worst-case predicted particle in a heading-keeping PD control evaluation reduces the possibility of overestimating performance relative to the true system, and that the method transfers to full-scale ship operational data.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only if the feedforward neural networks trained on the same dataset with random initialization and mini-batch shuffling are diverse enough that their spread behaves like a sample from the space of plausible maneuvering models; if the ensemble members are too similar or systematically miss the same region, the predicted variance will not match the actual prediction error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A simulator built this way can tell its user when it is extrapolating: berthing-trained models give tight, accurate predictions for berthing-like trajectories and wide, less accurate predictions for zigzag, turning, and random maneuvers.
  • Using the worst-case predicted particle rather than a single-model prediction reduces, though does not completely eliminate, overestimation of heading-keeping PD control performance relative to the true system.
  • Enlarging the ensemble increases the predicted variance without reducing the mean prediction bias, so ensemble size is an uncertainty-resolution parameter rather than an accuracy parameter.
  • The same training recipe transfers to full-scale ship operational data, so probabilistic maneuvering models can be built from routine port logs without captive model tests.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the ensemble covariance could be tested for calibration by checking whether the Mahalanobis distance of held-out true trajectories follows the expected chi-square distribution; if it does not, the spread is a relative alert rather than a calibrated probability.
  • The authors note that the method cannot represent aleatoric uncertainty from waves, currents, draft changes, or observation errors; a natural extension would be to add an explicit disturbance-noise term so irreducible uncertainty is separated from model-form uncertainty.
  • The worst-case particle rule could be turned into a control design tool, for example by using the predicted particle distribution to constrain or robustify MPC, which the paper does not attempt.
  • A direct comparison against Gaussian-process maneuvering models on the same berthing-only training data would clarify whether the ensemble's uncertainty estimates are competitive with kernel methods at full scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ensemble learning approach for non-parametric system identification of ship maneuvering motion using feedforward neural networks. A set of FNN models is trained by maximum likelihood on trajectory data, with an auxiliary FNN for initial-state estimation, and predictions are propagated as particles using the TS1 and TS∞ trajectory-sampling methods of Chua et al. The authors evaluate the method on simulated model-ship data (berthing, zigzag, turning, and random maneuvers) and on full-scale port navigation data, and they apply the ensemble simulator to heading-keeping PD control evaluation. The central claim is that the ensemble spread captures epistemic uncertainty caused by insufficient or unevenly distributed data, so that low-bias predictions show low variance and high-bias predictions show high variance, and that worst-case particle evaluation reduces overestimation of control performance.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the proposed method would be a practically useful non-parametric maneuvering simulator for harbor operations, where data coverage is uneven and safety margins matter. The paper has several strengths: the likelihood-based training procedure is coherent, the evaluation uses an external MMG simulator as ground truth, the comparison of TS1 and TS∞ is informative, the full-scale data experiment addresses applicability, and the authors are candid about residual overestimation in the PD-control study. However, the evidence for calibrated epistemic uncertainty is currently indirect: the main quantitative support is a correlation between bias and ensemble variance, not a coverage or calibration test, and the reported Mahalanobis values indicate severe overconfidence. The safety-related claim about worst-case evaluation is also qualitative. These gaps are fixable but are load-bearing for the paper's core message.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (31b), Fig. 5b] The central claim that the ensemble captures epistemic uncertainty is supported only by the correlation between LEucl and LMaha, which is not a calibration statement. For a calibrated three-dimensional velocity prediction, the quantity in Eq. (31b) should average approximately 3 (the mean of the chi-square distribution with 3 degrees of freedom; about 3.1 with the finite-sample correction for P=100). The values in Fig. 5b are on the order of 10^2 to 10^3, implying that the ensemble covariance is far too small and that the predictor is severely overconfident. The observed 'large bias implies large variance' trend is consistent with a variance estimate that scales with local error without being a faithful posterior width. The authors should report empirical coverage of the predicted velocity ellipsoids at standard levels (e.g., 50%, 90%, 99%), quantile-quantile or reliability diagrams, and, if needed, discuss recalibration. Without such a test, the statement that the method 'captures epistemic uncertainty' is not established.
  2. [§3.3, §4] The ensemble diversity premise is asserted rather than verified. The paper assumes that FNNs trained on the same dataset with random initialization and mini-batch shuffling form a plausible sample from the function space of the true maneuvering model (the model set Φ in Section 4). No metric of ensemble diversity is reported, and although the training in Section 5.3 is repeated five times, no error bars or repeatability statistics are given for the main prediction results. Deep ensembles are known to be under-diverse in general, so this assumption needs direct evidence. The authors should report the spread of LEucl and LMaha across repeated ensemble trainings, pairwise model disagreement, or another diversity measure, to support the interpretation of ensemble spread as epistemic uncertainty.
  3. [§5.4, Figs. 9 and 15, §7] The claim that worst-case particle evaluation 'reduces the possibility of overestimating performance' is only qualitative. The ratio max_p L_PD,p / L_PD,true is shown on a log scale, but no quantitative statement is made about how often, or by how much, the worst-case prediction still overestimates the true system. Section 7 concedes that overestimation persists on the stability boundary even with M=75, which is exactly the regime relevant to safety-critical harbor maneuvers. I recommend quantifying the conservativeness: report the distribution of L_PD,p / L_PD,true over particles and over training seeds, state the fraction of gain combinations for which the worst of 100 particles still overestimates the true score, and discuss whether any bounded or distributionally robust guarantee can be claimed. As written, the practical safety benefit is plausible but not demonstrated at the level the introduction promises.
  4. [§6.2, Fig. 13, §7] The full-scale experiment is presented as evidence of applicability, but Section 7 states that the method cannot represent aleatoric uncertainty due to unobserved variables such as waves, currents, and draft changes. The failure mode shown in Fig. 13, where the bias relative to observations is larger than the particle variance over long segments, is exactly what one would expect from unmodeled aleatoric effects rather than from epistemic uncertainty about the maneuvering model. The authors should either apply the method to segments where such disturbances are small, model or filter the aleatoric component, or explicitly frame the full-scale results as a demonstration of the method's limitations. Without this, the full-scale claim is weaker than stated and the interpretability of the large Mahalanobis values is unclear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, §1.1] There are several stylistic repetitions, e.g., two consecutive sentences beginning with 'However' in the paragraph on scale effects and full-scale measurements.
  2. [Eq. (31b)] The quantity in Eq. (31b) is called the 'mean squared Mahalanobis distance,' but the formula contains no outer square; the squared distance is inside the bilinear form. Please align the terminology with the definition.
  3. [Eq. (40)] The middle condition in the piecewise definition of f_step(y) reads 'ϵ < y < ϵ', which is empty as written; it should presumably be '-ϵ < y < ϵ', with the last branch 'y ≤ -ϵ'.
  4. [§6.2] The text says 'as in Section 6.2' when referring to the evaluation procedure; this should be Section 5.3.
  5. [References] Reference [28] is listed only as 'arXiv preprint' without an arXiv identifier; please supply the complete citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ensemble uncertainty estimate is an emergent property of independently trained FNNs, not a fitted target, and predictions are benchmarked against an external MMG simulator and held-out data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the spread of ensemble predictions captures epistemic uncertainty arising from insufficient or unevenly distributed data. That uncertainty quantity is not fitted to the test error: the ensemble is formed by training FNNs on the same dataset with random initialization and mini-batch shuffling (Section 3.3), and the prediction variance is computed from particle propagation (Section 4). The accuracy and uncertainty metrics in Eqs. (31a) and (31b) are evaluated against ground truth generated by an MMG simulator that is external to the trained neural-network models, so no parameter of the uncertainty estimate is tuned to minimize those metrics. The trajectory sampling methods TS1 and TS∞ are explicitly attributed to Chua et al., and the datasets include held-out berthing, zigzag, turning, and random maneuvers with distributions deliberately different from the training data. The self-citations to earlier work on likelihood-based FNN system identification and on the MMG/wind simulation models are methodological antecedents rather than unverified premises that force the present result; the current evaluation is self-contained against an independent simulator and full-scale operational data. The authors' own limitations—that overestimation at the PD-control stability boundary is not completely eliminated and that aleatoric uncertainty is not represented—are correctness and calibration cautions, not indicators that the derivation reduces to its inputs. The skeptic's observation that the reported Mahalanobis values are far larger than a calibrated chi-square expectation would imply is a serious validity risk, but it is a statistical calibration criticism, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical constants. The free parameters listed are user-selected training and sampling hyperparameters. The central uncertainty claim depends on the assumption that ensemble disagreement approximates epistemic uncertainty, which is a heuristic rather than a proven equivalence.

free parameters (4)
  • Kinit = 30
    Number of time steps used for initial state estimation; chosen by hand, not optimized.
  • M = 15 (and 75 in one experiment)
    Number of ensemble members; hand-selected.
  • P = 100
    Number of particles for trajectory sampling; hand-selected.
  • Hidden layer size and count = 3 layers of 256 units with tanh
    Architecture hyperparameters chosen without systematic tuning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The maneuvering dynamics are time-invariant and can be represented by the ODE x_dot = f(x, u, w_T) with unknown f.
    Eq. (6) in Section 2.3. If the true ship dynamics are time-varying or not first-order Markov, the model class is misspecified.
  • domain assumption The MMG simulator with the described coefficients is a faithful representation of the real ship for the simulation experiments.
    Section 5.1 and Appendix A. The evaluation of prediction accuracy relies on this simulated ground truth.
  • domain assumption Randomly initialized and independently trained FNN ensembles approximate the Bayesian posterior over models.
    Section 3.3 and Section 4. This is a known heuristic, not a proven equivalence.
  • domain assumption Observation noise covariance Sigma_epsilon is known and fixed.
    Section 3.2.1. The likelihood and loss function depend on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probabilistic Prediction of Ship Maneuvering Motion using Ensemble Learning with Feedforward Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EL55BJW4

@misc{pith2026241200363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probabilistic Prediction of Ship Maneuvering Motion using Ensemble Learning with Feedforward Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EL55BJW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00363}
}
read the original abstract

In the field of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), the accurate modeling of ship maneuvering motion for harbor maneuvers is a crucial technology. Non-parametric system identification (SI) methods, which do not require prior knowledge of the target ship, have the potential to produce accurate maneuvering models using observed data. However, the modeling accuracy significantly depends on the distribution of the available data. To address these issues, we propose a probabilistic prediction method of maneuvering motion that incorporates ensemble learning into a non-parametric SI using feedforward neural networks. This approach captures the epistemic uncertainty caused by insufficient or unevenly distributed data. In this paper, we show the prediction accuracy and uncertainty prediction results for various unknown scenarios, including port navigation, zigzag, turning, and random control maneuvers, assuming that only port navigation data is available. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates the utility of the proposed method as a maneuvering simulator for assessing heading-keeping PD control. As a result, it was confirmed that the proposed method can achieve high accuracy if training data with similar state distributions is provided, and that it can also predict high uncertainty for states that deviate from the training data distribution. In the performance evaluation of PD control, it was confirmed that considering worst-case scenarios reduces the possibility of overestimating performance compared to the true system. Finally, we show the results of applying the proposed method to full-scale ship data, demonstrating its applicability to full-scale ships.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A subject model ship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coordinate systems. is defined as u ≡ (δP, δS, nBT) T . 2.3 Ship maneuvering motion on calm wa￾ter This study focuses on the three degrees of freedom maneu￾vering motion on calm water, considering wind disturbances, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of ship velocity and actuator state of datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison results of using or not using initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of prediction accuracy and uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of Mahalanobis distance and Eu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prediction of a berthing maneuver. Note that it is initialized using the true value at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prediction of a 10◦ -10◦ zigzag maneuver. Note that it is initialized using the true value at t = 0.0 (s) and t = 100.0 (s). • It was found that, for test dataset of berthing maneu￾vers, which has a distribution similar to the training dataset, relatively high accuracy…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evaluation results for PD gain performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evaluation results of heading-keeping PD control using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evaluation results of heading-keeping PD control using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of Mahalanobis distance and Eu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prediction of a berthing maneuver using TS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prediction of a berthing maneuver using TS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Maximum score for PD gain performance using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Miyauchi, T

    Y. Miyauchi, T. Kambara, N. Umeda, K. Hosogaya, A. Maki, Statistical analysis of port navigation and ma- neuver of a japanese merchant vessel. in Conference proceedings, the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, vol. 35 (2022), vol. 35, pp. 77–87, (in Japanese)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Quantitative Evaluation of Full-Scale Ship Maneuvering Characteristics During Berthing and Unberthing

    A.N. Mwange, Y. Miyauchi, T. Kambara, H. Koike, K. Hosogaya, A. Maki. Quantitative evaluation of full- scale ship maneuvering characteristics during berthing and unberthing (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.13497

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    0.0 0.5 u (m/s) −0.05 0.00 0.05 vm (m/s) 0 20 40 60 80 100 t (s) −2.5 0.0 2.5 r (deg/s) (b) Ship velocity

    A.Ogawa, H.Kasai, Onthemathematicalmodelofma- noeuvring motion of ships, International Shipbuilding Progress 25, 306 (1978) 14 0 5 10 15 y0/Lpp −2.5 0.0 2.5 x0/Lpp Predictions True 0 20 40 60 80 100 t (s) 80 100ψ (deg.) (a) Ship pose. 0.0 0.5 u (m/s) −0.05 0.00 0.05 vm (m/s) 0 20 40 60 80 100 t (s) −2.5 0.0 2.5 r (deg/s) (b) Ship velocity. −25 0 25 δP (de...

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    K. Kose, H. Hinata, Y. Hashizume, E. Futagawa, On a mathematical model of maneuvering motions of ships in low speeds, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1984(155), 132 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Fujino, H

    M. Fujino, H. Kagemoto, Y. Ishii, H. Joraku, Stopping ability of a ship in shallow water, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan1990(168), 117 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Kobayashi, A

    H. Kobayashi, A. Ishibashi, K. Shimokawa, Y. Shimura, A study on mathematical model for the maneuvering motions of twin-propeller twin-rudder ship : In refer- ence to the maneuvering motion from ordinary speed range to low speed range, The Journal of Japan Insti- tute of Navigation91, 263 (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Ishibashi, H

    A. Ishibashi, H. Kobayashi, T. Ugajin, A study on ship maneuvering characteristics in shallow water : On the harbor maneuvering at low speed range, The Journal of Japan Institute of Navigation95, 371 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Yoshimura, I

    Y. Yoshimura, I. Nakao, A. Ishibashi, Unified Mathe- matical Model for Ocean and Harbour Manoeuvring. in Proceedings of MARSIM2009(International Confer- ence on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability, 2009), pp. 116–124

    work page 2009

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Chislett, J

    M.S. Chislett, J. Strom-Tejsen, Planar motion mecha- nism tests and full-scale steering and manoeuvring pre- dictions for a mariner class vessel, International Ship- building Progress 12, 201 (1965) 15 −2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 y0/Lpp −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 x0/Lpp Observation P...

    1965

  2. [10]

    Koyama, J.H

    T. Koyama, J.H. Chyu, S. Motora, M. Koyanagi, On the circular motion test technique (cmt) for the maneu- verability model test, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan1975(138), 151 (1975)

    1975

  3. [11]

    Motora, On the measurement of added mass and added moment of inertia for ship motions, Journal of Zosen Kiokai 1959(105), 83 (1959)

    S. Motora, On the measurement of added mass and added moment of inertia for ship motions, Journal of Zosen Kiokai 1959(105), 83 (1959)

    1959

  4. [12]

    Inoue, M

    S. Inoue, M. Hirano, K. Kijima, Hydrodynamic deriva- tives on ship manoeuvring, International Shipbuilding Progress 28, 112 (1981)

    1981

  5. [13]

    Kijima, T

    K. Kijima, T. Katsuno, Y. Nakiri, Y. Furukawa, On the manoeuvring performance of a ship with theparameter of loading condition, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan1990(168), 141 (1990)

    1990

  6. [14]

    Åström, C

    K. Åström, C. Källström, Identification of ship steering dynamics, Automatica 12(1), 9 (1976)

    1976

  7. [15]

    Abkowitz, Measurement of hydrodynamic charac- teristics from ship maneuvering trials by system identi- fication

    M.A. Abkowitz, Measurement of hydrodynamic charac- teristics from ship maneuvering trials by system identi- fication. in Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 88(1980), pp. 283–318

    1980

  8. [16]

    Källström, K

    C. Källström, K. Åström, Experiences of system iden- tification applied to ship steering, Automatica 17(1), 187 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    Yoon, K.P

    H.K. Yoon, K.P. Rhee, Identification of hydrodynamic coefficients in ship maneuvering equations of motion by estimation-before-modeling technique, Ocean Engi- neering 30(18), 2379 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Sutulo, C

    S. Sutulo, C. Guedes Soares, An algorithm for offline identification of ship manoeuvring mathematical mod- 16 20 40 60 80 100KD log (maxp (LPD,p)) log (maxp (LPD,p) /LPD,true) 25 50 75 100 KP 20 40 60 80 100KD Variance of log LPD,p 25 50 75 100 KP log LPD,true −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3...

    2014

  11. [19]

    Sawada, K

    R. Sawada, K. Hirata, Y. Kitagawa, E. Saito, M. Ueno, K.Tanizawa, J.Fukuto, Pathfollowingalgorithmappli- cation to automatic berthing control, Journal of Marine Science and Technology (Japan)26(2), 541 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Miyauchi, A

    Y. Miyauchi, A. Maki, N. Umeda, D.M. Rachman, Y. Akimoto, System parameter exploration of ship ma- neuvering model for automatic docking/berthing using CMA-ES, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 27(2), 1065 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Sutulo, C

    S. Sutulo, C. Guedes Soares, Application of an offline identification algorithm for adjusting parameters of a modular manoeuvring mathematical model, Ocean En- gineering 279, 114328 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    H.W. He, Z.H. Wang, Z.J. Zou, Y. Liu, Nonparametric modeling of ship maneuvering motion based on self- designed fully connected neural network, Ocean Engi- neering 251, 111113 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    W. Shen, J. Yao, X. Hu, J. Liu, S. Li, Ship dy- namics model identification based on semblance least square support vector machine, Ocean Engineering 287, 115908 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    L. Chen, P. Yang, S. Li, Y. Tian, G. Liu, G. Hao, Grey- box identification modeling of ship maneuvering motion basedonls-svm, OceanEngineering 266, 112957(2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Suyama, R

    R. Suyama, R. Matsushita, R. Kakuta, K. Wakita, A. Maki, Parameter fine-tuning method for mmg model using real-scale ship data, Ocean Engineering 298, 117323 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Luo, Z.J

    W.L. Luo, Z.J. Zou, Parametric Identification of Ship Maneuvering Models by Using Support Vector Ma- chines, Journal of Ship Research53(01), 19 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Zhang, Z.j

    X.g. Zhang, Z.j. Zou, Identification of Abkowitz Model for Ship Manoeuvring Motion Using ϵ -Support Vec- tor Regression, Journal of Hydrodynamics 23(3), 353 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Miyauchi, Y

    Y. Miyauchi, Y. Akimoto, N. Umeda, A. Maki, Devel- opment of a mathematical model for harbor-maneuvers to realize modeling automation, (2023),arXiv preprint

    2023

  21. [29]

    W. Luo, L. Moreira, C. Guedes Soares, Manoeuvring simulation of catamaran by using implicit models based onsupport vectormachines, Ocean Engineering82, 150 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    M. Zhu, A. Hahn, Y.Q. Wen, W.Q. Sun, Optimized support vector regression algorithm-based modeling of ship dynamics, Applied Ocean Research 90, 101842 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Z. Wang, Z. Zou, C. Guedes Soares, Identification of ship manoeuvring motion based on nu-support vector machine, Ocean Engineering183, 270 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Wakita, Y

    K. Wakita, Y. Miyauchi, Y. Akimoto, A. Maki, Data augmentation methods of dynamic model identification for harbor maneuvers using feedforward neural net- work, Journal of Marine Science and Technology (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sig- moidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 2(4), 303 (1989)

    G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sig- moidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 2(4), 303 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Networks 4(2), 251 (1991)

    K. Hornik, Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks, Neural Networks 4(2), 251 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Moreira, C

    L. Moreira, C. Guedes Soares, Dynamic model of ma- noeuvrability using recursive neural networks, Ocean Engineering 30(13), 1669 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Moreira, C.G

    L. Moreira, C.G. Soares, Recursive neural network model of catamaran manoeuvring, International Jour- nal of Maritime Engineering154 (2012), copyright The University of Buckingham Press 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Rajesh, S

    G. Rajesh, S. Bhattacharyya, System identification for nonlinear maneuvering of large tankers using artificial neural network, Applied Ocean Research 30(4), 256 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Z.J

    X.G. Zhang, Z.J. Zou, Black-box modeling of ship ma- noeuvringmotionbasedonfeed-forwardneuralnetwork with chebyshev orthogonal basis function, Journal of Marine Science and Technology18, 42 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Oskin, A.A

    D.A. Oskin, A.A. Dyda, V.E. Markin, Neural network identification of marine ship dynamics, IFAC Proceed- ings Volumes46(33), 191 (2013), 9th IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems

    2013

  32. [40]

    L. Hao, Y. Han, C. Shi, Z. Pan, Recurrent neural net- works for nonparametric modeling of ship maneuver- ing motion, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering14, 100436 (2022) 17

    2022

  33. [41]

    Wakita, A

    K. Wakita, A. Maki, N. Umeda, Y. Miyauchi, T. Shi- moji, D.M. Rachman, Y. Akimoto, On neural network identification for low-speed ship maneuvering model, Journal of Marine Science and Technology27(1), 772 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    J. Woo, J. Park, C. Yu, N. Kim, Dynamic model identi- fication of unmanned surface vehicles using deep learn- ing network, Applied Ocean Research78, 123 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Jiang, X.R

    Y. Jiang, X.R. Hou, X.G. Wang, Z.H. Wang, Z.L. Yang, Z.J. Zou, Identification modeling and prediction of ship maneuvering motion based on lstm deep neural net- work, Journal of Marine Science and Technology27, 125 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Ariza Ramirez, Z.Q

    W. Ariza Ramirez, Z.Q. Leong, H. Nguyen, S.G. Jayas- inghe, Non-parametric dynamic system identification of ships using multi-output gaussian processes, Ocean En- gineering 166, 26 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Y. Xue, Y. Liu, C. Ji, G. Xue, S. Huang, System identification of ship dynamic model based on gaussian process regression with input noise, Ocean Engineering 216, 107862 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Y. Xue, G. Chen, Z. Li, G. Xue, W. Wang, Y. Liu, Online identification of a ship maneuvering model using a fast noisy input gaussian process, Ocean Engineering 250, 110704 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Y. Xue, Y. Liu, G. Xue, G. Chen, Identification and prediction of ship maneuvering motion based on a gaus- sian process with uncertainty propagation, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering9(8) (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Gawlikowski, C.R.N

    J. Gawlikowski, C.R.N. Tassi, M. Ali, J. Lee, M. Humt, J. Feng, A. Kruspe, R. Triebel, P. Jung, R. Roscher, M. Shahzad, W. Yang, R. Bamler, X.X. Zhu, A sur- vey of uncertainty in deep neural networks, Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 1513 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Lakshminarayanan, A

    B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, C. Blundell, Sim- ple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation us- ing deep ensembles. in Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, vol. 30, ed. by I. Guyon, U.V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vish- wanathan, R....

    2017

  42. [50]

    Rahaman, A.H

    R. Rahaman, A.H. Thiery, Uncertainty quantification and deep ensembles. in Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, ed. by A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, J.W. Vaughan (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    K. Chua, R. Calandra, R. McAllister, S. Levine, Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using prob- abilistic dynamics models. in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, ...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Steering systems: New VecTwin system

    Japan Hamworthy & Co., Ltd. Steering systems: New VecTwin system. https://www.japanham.com/ en/service/new_vectwin.html (2022). Accessed on 12 July 2023

    2022

  45. [53]

    Hasegawa, D

    K. Hasegawa, D. Kang, M. Sano, K. Nabeshima, Study on the maneuverability of a large vessel installed with a mariner type super vectwin rudder, Journal of Marine Science and Technology11, 88 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    YASUKAWA, N

    H. YASUKAWA, N. HIRATA, S. TANAKA, H. HATA, Tank tests on low speed maneuvering of a ship with vectwin rudder, The Journal of Japan Institute of Nav- igation 124, 265 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Rachman, Y

    D.M. Rachman, Y. Aoki, Y. Miyauchi, N. Umeda, A. Maki, Experimental low-speed positioning system with vectwin rudder for automatic docking (berthing), Journal of Marine Science and Technology 28, 689 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Wakita, Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Trajectory Tracking Control of Autonomous Surface Ship

    K. Wakita, Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Trajectory Tracking Control of Autonomous Surface Ship. in The 34th International Ocean and Polar En- gineering Conference(2024), International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. ISOPE–I–24–524

    2024

  49. [57]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G.E. Hinton, Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, vol. 25, ed. by F. Pereira, C. Burges, L. Bottou, K. Weinberger (Curran Associates, Inc., 2012), vol. 25

    2012

  50. [58]

    Hinton, L

    G. Hinton, L. Deng, D. Yu, G.E. Dahl, A.r. Mohamed, N. Jaitly, A. Senior, V. Vanhoucke, P. Nguyen, T.N. Sainath, B. Kingsbury, Deep neural networks for acous- tic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 29(6), 82 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Dietterich, Ensemble methods in machine learn- ing

    T.G. Dietterich, Ensemble methods in machine learn- ing. inMultiple Classifier Systems(SpringerBerlinHei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000), pp. 1–15

    2000

  52. [60]

    O. Sagi, L. Rokach, Ensemble learning: A survey, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8(4), e1249 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Kingma, J

    D.P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochas- tic optimization. in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, ed. by Y. Bengio, Y. LeCun (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Livieris, L

    I.E. Livieris, L. Iliadis, P. Pintelas, On ensemble tech- niques of weight-constrained neural networks, Evolving Systems 12, 155 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Y. Wen, G. Jerfel, R. Muller, M.W. Dusenberry, J. Snoek, B. Lakshminarayanan, D. Tran, Combining ensembles and data augmentation can harm your cali- bration. in International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations (2021) 18

    2021

  56. [64]

    S. Lee, S. Purushwalkam, M. Cogswell, D. Crandall, D. Batra. Why m heads are better than one: Training a diverse ensemble of deep networks (2015). URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1511.06314

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. Kang, V. Nagarajan, K. Hasegawa, M. Sano, Math- ematical model of single-propeller twin-rudder ship, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 13, 207 (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    Kobayashi

    E. Kobayashi. A simulation study on ship manoeu- vrability at low speeds. Akishima Laboratory, Ocean Engineering Research Section, Mitsubishi Heave Indus- tries Ltd. Published in: Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin No. 180 (1988)

    1988

  59. [67]

    Fujiwara, M

    T. Fujiwara, M. Ueno, T. Nimura, Estimation of wind forces and moments acting on ships, Journal of the So- ciety of Naval Architects of Japan1998(183), 77 (1998)

    1998

  60. [68]

    A. Maki, Y. Maruyama, L. Dostal, M. Sakai, R. Sawada, K. Sasa, N. Umeda, Practical method for evaluating wind influence on autonomous ship opera- tions, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 27, 1302 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    A. Maki, Y. Maruyama, L. Dostal, K. Sasa, R. Sawada, K. Wakita, Practical method for evaluating wind in- fluence on autonomous ship operations (2nd report), Journal of Marine Science and Technology (2024) A Simulation models A.1 MMG model The MMG model used in this study is de...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.