Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Machine learning based prediction of dynamical clustering in granular gases

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Machine learning models trained on discrete-element simulations predict the gas–cluster transition in vibrated granular gases from particle number, excitation amplitude, and wall phase shift, without running new simulations.

desk verdict Clean ML benchmark for DEM-derived clustering, but a direct contradiction about the phase-shift grid guts the data provenance as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15657 v1 pith:HVGXELME submitted 2025-06-18 cond-mat.soft physics.comp-phphysics.data-anstat.AP

Sai Preetham Sata , Ralf Stannarius , Benjamin Noack , Dmitry Puzyrev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.comp-phphysics.data-anstat.AP
keywords granulargasesdynamicalclusteringgas-clustertransitionmachinelearningdiscreteelementmethodKolmogorov-Smirnovtestcagingcriterionmicrogravity
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

The paper argues that the gas–cluster transition in a microgravity granular gas can be predicted by machine learning once it has been labeled by two established statistical criteria. The labels come from discrete element method (DEM) simulations of frictional spheres in a cuboid container with two vibrating walls, where clustering is detected by a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on local packing-fraction profiles and by a caging criterion based on Voronoi cell volumes. Across the tested range of particle number, excitation amplitude, and wall phase shift, several regression and classification models reproduce the DEM-derived transition parameters and the gas/cluster labels, with the best performers differing between interpolation and extrapolation tasks. If correct, this gives a fast surrogate for DEM simulations that currently cost roughly ten hours per run, and it can map the phase space of a preparative microgravity experiment before flight.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage pipeline. Stage one reduces the high-dimensional DEM state—positions, velocities, and contacts of thousands of spheres—to two scalar order parameters: $\delta_{\min}$, the minimum over the excitation cycle of the gap between the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic and its threshold, and $\phi_{\mathrm{caged}}$, the maximum fraction of particles whose Voronoi cell volume ratio exceeds the caging threshold. Stage two trains standard regression and classification models on the map from particle number, amplitude, and phase shift to these scalars and to the resulting binary gas/cluster label. The load-bearing identity is the correspondence between the sign of $\delta_{\min}$ (or the $\phi_{\mathrm{caged}} > 0.05$ threshold) and the physically observed clustered state; the machine learning only learns that correspondence from DEM-generated labels.

What would settle it

A microgravity experiment that measures particle positions for parameter sets inside the trained range, for example $N \approx 4000$, $A \approx 4.5$ mm, and $\theta \approx \pi/2$, and compares the observed onset of dense clustering with the predicted gas/cluster label would settle the matter. If the predicted boundary disagrees with observation by more than the model's interpolation error, the central claim fails. A cheaper simulation-level check is to test whether the KS-based and caging-based labels agree with each other on the full parameter grid; systematic disagreement would mean the models are fitting an ambiguous target rather than a single transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a specific experimental geometry, the gas–cluster transition of frictional spheres is a predictable function of just three parameters—number of particles, piston amplitude, and phase shift between the two vibrating walls—and that a small set of standard machine learning models can learn this function from DEM data. With the KS-derived label $\delta_{\min}$, a neural-network regressor reaches $R^2=0.967$ on interpolation, while polynomial and XGBoost regressors are the only ones that extrapolate to larger particle numbers and amplitudes without collapsing; support vector and neural-network regressors fail on these extrapolations. With the caging criterion $\phi_{\mathrm{caged}}$, XGBoost is best at interpolation and polynomial regression is best at both extrapolation tasks. For classification, random forest is best for KS-based interpolation and neural network is best for extrapolation, while XGBoost and neural network share top performance for caging interpolation. The paper does not claim a universal model; it claims that this low-dimensional phase space is simple enough that a few hundred DEM samples suffice to train reliable predictors, and that the same workflow can be adapted to other clustering metrics and geometries.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the two DEM-derived criteria—the KS test at $\alpha=0.05$ and the caging threshold $\phi_{\mathrm{caged}} > 0.05$—actually mark the real gas–cluster transition in a microgravity granular gas, and the paper states explicitly that this was not verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained surrogate maps the full tested N–A–θ grid in seconds, replacing roughly ten-hour DEM runs for each point.
  • Training data can be taken on a regular grid or randomly distributed over phase space, so the sample budget is small and flexible.
  • If a better clustering metric is found, the same ML pipeline can be retrained on it with little adaptation, as the paper notes.
  • Experiment planning for microgravity campaigns can use the predicted phase diagram to pre-select parameter ranges before flight.
  • The same approach should transfer to other dynamic systems with many degrees of freedom that are statistically classified by a few parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The best-model hierarchy is dataset-dependent: the neural network interpolates $\delta_{\min}$ best but fails on extrapolation, suggesting its smoothness prior fits the data interior but not the boundary; a model that respects physical constraints at low fill fractions might generalize better.
  • Treating the phase shift $\theta$ as a periodic feature (for example feeding $\cos\theta$ and $\sin\theta$ instead of a linear input) would exploit the symmetry of the two-wall excitation and could improve extrapolation in $\theta$, a direction the paper does not explore.
  • Because both criteria ignore particle dynamics, a surrogate trained on either captures only static density structure; adding velocity-correlation or collision-rate features could target the dynamical onset the paper acknowledges is missing.
  • The extrapolation claims hold only within the tested ranges and for the fixed geometry and particle diameter; they do not suggest validity across container size, particle size, or material.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript trains supervised machine-learning regressors and classifiers on Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulations of a vibrated granular gas in the VIP-Gran geometry. The target quantities are two established clustering indicators derived from the simulations: the minimum KS-test margin δ_min and the maximum caged-particle fraction φ_caged. The input parameters are particle number N, excitation amplitude A, and phase shift θ between the two vibrating walls. The authors report interpolation and extrapolation experiments for five regression and five classification algorithms, selecting a best model in each task. The central claim is that machine learning can predict the gas-cluster state for a given set of system parameters without running new DEM simulations.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper would provide a useful proof-of-concept for using ML surrogates to accelerate parameter-space exploration in microgravity granular-gas experiments. The study has several genuine strengths: the learning targets come from DEM simulations external to the ML models, so there is no circularity; the parameter grid is systematic; five regression and five classification methods are compared; and the extrapolation tests go beyond simple in-sample fitting. The authors also explicitly acknowledge in Sec. 5 that the physical appropriateness of the two clustering criteria was not verified, which is an honest limitation. However, the manuscript currently contains a load-bearing data-provenance contradiction concerning the phase-shift parameter, as well as internal inconsistencies in the reported performance metrics, so the central claim cannot yet be assessed as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 vs Secs. 4.1.1 and 4.2.1] There is a direct contradiction about the θ grid. Sec. 3.2 states that 'the choice of phases between the wall vibrations was restricted to in-phase (θ = 0) and anti-phase (θ = π) piston movement,' but Sec. 4.1.1 builds the interpolation dataset on 'θ/π from 0 to 1 with step size of 0.25,' and the reported dataset size 385 = 11×7×5 requires five θ levels. Similarly, Sec. 4.2.1 reports a caging-interpolation dataset of 693 = 11×7×9 samples, which requires nine θ levels. The extrapolation dataset sizes in Sec. 4.1.1 (315 = 9×7×5 and 70 = 2×7×5) and Sec. 4.2.1 (567 = 9×7×9 and 126 = 2×7×9) also require multiple intermediate θ values. These statements cannot both be true. Because every interpolation and extrapolation result and the abstract's three-parameter claim depend on θ-resolved training data, this is a load-bearing issue: either Sec. 3.2 is wrong and intermediate θ values were actually simulated, or the dataset descriptions and the surrogate's claimed input space are unsupported. Please state the actual θ grid explicitly, reconcile the sample counts, and if intermediate θ values were not simulated, remove or explicitly restrict all claims about θ dependence.
  2. [Sec. 4.1.1, Table 3] The reported metrics in Table 3 are internally inconsistent. The Random Forest Regression row lists RMSE = 0.001 and R² = 0.894, while the Neural Network Regression row lists RMSE = 0.007 and R² = 0.967. For the same target dataset, a lower RMSE must correspond to a higher R², so these entries cannot both be correct as printed. The text then states that the ANN 'has the lowest RMSE and MAE values,' which is not supported by the table because the Random Forest RMSE is an order of magnitude smaller. Since the ANN is selected as the best interpolation model on this basis, this inconsistency directly affects the main regression claim. Please verify all entries in Tables 3–5 and 10–12 and correct any typos.
  3. [Secs. 3.6, 4.1.1, 4.2.1] All performance metrics are computed on a single random split, and the 'best' model is selected by comparing test-set metrics across algorithms. With a single split, the reported RMSE, R², and AUC values have no uncertainty estimates, and the model ranking may be an artifact of that particular split. In addition, using the test set for model selection means the reported test performance is optimistically biased. To support the quantitative 'best model' claims, the authors should report repeated k-fold or bootstrap confidence intervals, or clearly separate a validation set used for model selection from a hold-out test set used exactly once for final evaluation.
  4. [Sec. 5 and Abstract] The abstract and conclusions claim prediction of the 'gas-cluster transition' without qualification, but Sec. 5 acknowledges that the appropriateness of the two clustering criteria (KS test with α = 0.05 and caging with T_caged = 0.285, φ_caged > 0.05) was not verified. The ML prediction target is therefore the state as defined by these two criteria applied to DEM data, not necessarily the physical transition in a real microgravity experiment. This caveat is acknowledged, but it should also be reflected in the abstract and in the phrasing of the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1.1] Typo: 'howest' should be 'lowest' in the sentence introducing the ANN as the best interpolation model.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.1] Typo: 'Of cause' should be 'Of course' in the summary paragraph of the caging-regression results.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a duplicated article: 'a cross-sectional view of the of the VIP-Gran experiment.' Please edit.
  4. [References] Reference [28] (Detectron2) and reference [29] (a general article on p-values) do not appear to support the statements they are attached to: the transient-period discussion in Sec. 3.2 and the φ_caged > 0.05 threshold in Sec. 3.4, respectively. Please replace them with appropriate citations.
  5. [Figures 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16] Several figure captions state that θ = π was fixed, while the surrounding text describes datasets with θ varying. Please clarify in each caption whether the displayed data are restricted to θ = π or are aggregated across θ.
  6. [Sec. 3.2] Typo: 'comprized' should be 'comprised' in the description of the simulation duration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ML surrogates are trained and tested on external DEM-derived targets; the acknowledged physical-criterion limitation is not a circular step.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is supervised surrogate modeling. The target variables δmin (Sec. 3.3, Eq. 2 and KS threshold) and φcaged (Sec. 3.4, Voronoi threshold 0.285) are computed from DEM trajectories with pre-existing statistical criteria, and the binary gas/cluster labels are deterministic threshold functions of those targets. None of these targets is defined in terms of the ML models, and none is fitted from the model outputs. Reported interpolation and extrapolation metrics (Tabs. 3-5, 10-12; Figs. 3-8, 11-16) are evaluated on held-out DEM points, so the test performance is external evidence rather than a renamed training fit. Self-citations ([9], [10], [19]) are used for side remarks or parameter justifications, not as load-bearing uniqueness claims; the central clustering thresholds are attributed to external prior work [1,5,8], and Sec. 5 explicitly acknowledges that the physical appropriateness of those criteria was not re-verified, which is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circularity. One internal inconsistency should be noted as a provenance/correctness issue, not circularity: Sec. 3.2 says the phase shift was restricted to θ=0 and θ=π, whereas Sec. 4.1 and 4.2 describe full θ/π grids (0.0 to 1.0 in steps of 0.25) with dataset sizes 385 and 693. This affects reproducibility of the reported θ-dependent surrogate but does not make the supervised learning derivation reduce to its inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no physical constants. Its central claim rests on the validity of the DEM model and of the two clustering criteria inherited from prior literature, neither of which is independently verified here. The ML hyperparameters are standard choices, not physics free parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The KS-test criterion Dmax < T = K_alpha/sqrt(k) with alpha=0.05 correctly separates gaseous and clustered states.
    Adopted from prior work [1,5,8]; Sec 3.3; the paper explicitly does not verify it (Sec 5).
  • domain assumption The caging criterion using Tcaged=0.285 and threshold phi_caged > 0.05 correctly identifies clustered states.
    Adopted from [1] and [29]; Sec 3.4; paper says physical appropriateness not verified.
  • domain assumption The DEM simulation with Hertz-Mindlin contacts and parameters (Y=5 MPa, mu=0.4, restitution=0.85, wall mu=0.4) faithfully reproduces the VIP-Gran granular gas behavior.
    Sec 3.2; the Young's modulus reduction to 5 MPa is justified only by statistical insensitivity in prior work [19], not by direct experimental comparison.
  • domain assumption The system reaches a statistically stationary state after 60 excitation periods and synchronizes with wall excitation, so the remaining 60 periods are representative.
    Sec 3.2; based on previous investigations [5,28].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning based prediction of dynamical clustering in granular gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVGXELME

@misc{pith2026250615657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning based prediction of dynamical clustering in granular gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVGXELME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15657}
}
read the original abstract

When dense granular gases are continuously excited under microgravity conditions, spatial inhomogeneities of the particle number density can emerge. A significant share of particles may collect in strongly overpopulated regions, called clusters. This dynamical clustering, or gas-cluster transition, is caused by a complex interplay and balance between the energy influx and dissipation in particle collisions. Particle number density, container geometry, and excitation strength influence this transition. We perform Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulations for ensembles of frictional spheres in a cuboid container and apply the Kolmogorov Smirnov test and a caging criterion to the local packing fraction profiles to detect clusters. Machine learning can be used to study the gas-cluster transition, and can be a promising alternative to identify the state of the system for a given set of system parameters without time-consuming complex DEM simulations. We test various machine learning models and identify the best models to predict dynamical clustering of frictional spheres in a specific experimental geometry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Europhys

    Opsomer, E., Ludewig, F., Vandewalle, N.: Dynamical clustering in driven granu- lar gas. Europhys. Lett. 99(4), 40001 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ 99/40001

    doi:10.1209/0295-5075/ 2012

  2. [2]

    Aumaitre, S., Behringer, R.P., Cazaubiel, A., Cl´ ement, E., Crassous, J., Durian, D.J., Falcon, E., Fauve, S., Fischer, D., Garcimart´ ın, A., Garrabos, Y., Hou, M., Jia, X., Lecoutre, C., Luding, S., Maza, D., Noirhomme, M., Opsomer, E., Palen- cia, F., P¨ oschel, T., Schockmel, J., Sperl, M., Stannarius, R., Vandewalle, N., Yu, P.: An instrument for st...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    npj Micrograv

    Adachi, M., Yu, P., Sperl, M.: Magnetic excitation of a granular gas as a bulk thermostat. npj Micrograv. 5, 19 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Harth, K., Trittel, T., May, K., Wegner, S., Stannarius, R.: Three-dimensional (3d) experimental realization and observation of a granular gas in microgravity. Adv. Space Res. 55, 1901–1912 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Europhys

    Noirhomme, M., Cazaubiel, A., Darras, A., Falcon, E., Fischer, D., Garrabos, Y., Lecoutre-Chabot, C., Merminod, S., Opsomer, E., Palencia, F., Schockmel, J., Stannarius, R., Vandewalle, N.: Threshold of gas-like to clustering transition in driven granular media in low-gravity environment. Europhys. Lett. 123(1), 14003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Goldhirsch, I., Zanetti, G.: Clustering instability in dissipative gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1619–1622 (1993) 28

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Falcon, E., Aumaitre, S., Evesque, P., Palencia, F., Lecoutre-Chabot, C., Fauve, S., Beysens, D., Garrabos, Y.: Collision statistics in a dilute granular gas fluidized by vibrations in low gravity. Eur. Phys. Lett. 74, 830–836 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Wu, Q.-L., Hou, M.-Y., Yang, L., Wang, W., Yang, G.-H., Tao, K.-W., Chen, L.- W., Zhang, S.: Parametric study of the clustering transition in vibration driven granular gas system. Chin. Phys. B 29(5), 054502 (2020) https://doi.org/10. 1088/1674-1056/ab8217

    work page 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    EPJ Web of Conf

    Puzyrev, D., Cruz Hidalgo, R., Fischer, D., Harth, K., Trittel, T., Stannarius, R.: Cluster dynamics in dense granular gases of rod-like particles. EPJ Web of Conf. 249, 04004 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124904004

    2021

  2. [10]

    available at Research Square (2025) https: //doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6243611/v1

    Sata, S.P., Stannarius, R., Puzyrev, D.: Criteria for dynamical clustering in permanently excited granular gases: Comparison and estimation with machine learning, PREPRINT (Version 1). available at Research Square (2025) https: //doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6243611/v1

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    AIP Conference Proceedings 1542, 169–172 (2013) https://doi.org/10

    Hidalgo, R., Kanzaki Cabrera, T., Alonso-Marroquin, F., Luding, S.: On the use of graphics processing units (gpus) for molecular dynamics simulation of spherical particles. AIP Conference Proceedings 1542, 169–172 (2013) https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.4811894

    2013

  4. [12]

    https://spacegrains.org/page/2/

    Space Grains Team. https://spacegrains.org/page/2/

  5. [13]

    Yu, P., St¨ ark, E., Blochberger, G., Kaplik, M., Offermann, M., Tran, D., Adachi, M., Sperl, M.: Magnetically excited granular matter in low gravity. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 054501 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Falcon, E., Bacri, J.-C., Laroche, C.: Equation of state of a granular gas homogeneously driven by particle rotations. Eur. Phys. Lett. 103, 64004 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Falcon, E., Bacri, J.-C., Laroche, C.: Dissipated power within a turbulent flow forced homogeneously by magnetic particles. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 102601 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.102601

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Ove- nius, Duisburg (1756)

    Leidenfrost, J.G.: De Aquae Communis Nonnulis Qualitatibus Tractatus. Ove- nius, Duisburg (1756)

  9. [17]

    Eshuis, P., Weele, J.P., Meer, D., Lohse, D.: Granular leidenfrost effect: Exper- iment and theory of floating particle clusters. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 258001 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Granular Matter 22, 67 (2020)

    Menendez, H.T., Sack, A., P¨ oschel, T.: Granular leidenfrost effect in microgravity. Granular Matter 22, 67 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Scientific Reports 11(1), 10621 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-021-89949-z

    Puzyrev, D., Fischer, D., Harth, K., Trittel, T., Hidalgo, R.C., Falcon, E., 29 Noirhomme, M., Opsomer, E., Vandewalle, N., Garrabos, Y., Lecoutre, C., Palen- cia, F., Stannarius, R.: Visual analysis of density and velocity profiles in dense 3D granular gases. Scientific Repor...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Computational Particle Mechanics 4 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-016-0133-4

    Rubio, S., Maza, D., Hidalgo, R.: Large-scale numerical simulations of poly- disperse particle flow in a silo. Computational Particle Mechanics 4 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-016-0133-4

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Hidalgo, R.C., Serero, D., P¨ oschel, T.: Homogeneous cooling of mixtures of particle shapes. Phys. Fluids 28(7), 073301 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 4954670

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Physical Review Letters 114, 238002 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.238002

    Rubio, S., Janda, A., Maza, D., Zuriguel, I., Hidalgo, R.: Disentangling the free- fall arch paradox in silo discharge. Physical Review Letters 114, 238002 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.238002

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    PhD thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg (2023)

    Wang, J.: Statistical dynamics of soft low-friction grains. PhD thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    PhD thesis, Universidad de Navarra (2022)

    Pong´ o, T.: Particle flows in silos, significance of particle shape, stiffness and friction. PhD thesis, Universidad de Navarra (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Journal fur die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 92, 156–171 (1882)

    Hertz, H.: On the contact of elastic solids. Journal fur die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 92, 156–171 (1882)

  18. [26]

    Journal of Applied Mechanics 16(3), 259–268 (1949)

    Mindlin, R.D.: Compliance of Elastic Bodies in Contact. Journal of Applied Mechanics 16(3), 259–268 (1949)

    1949

  19. [27]

    npj Microgravity 10(1), 36 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Puzyrev, D., Trittel, T., Harth, K., Stannarius, R.: Cooling of a granular gas mixture in microgravity. npj Microgravity 10(1), 36 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41526-024-00369-5

    2024

  20. [28]

    https:// github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2 (2019)

    Wu, Y., Kirillov, A., Massa, F., Lo, W.-Y., Girshick, R.: Detectron2. https:// github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    https://rdcu.be/dv7LL

    Statistical significance: p value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics—reasons for a conservative approach. https://rdcu.be/dv7LL

  22. [30]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Mach...

    2011

  23. [31]

    https://levelup.gitconnected.com/ random-forest-regression-209c0f354c84 (2020)

    Chaya: Random Forest Regression. https://levelup.gitconnected.com/ random-forest-regression-209c0f354c84 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Applied Sciences 10, 6593 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186593

    Guo, R., Zhao, Z., Wang, T., Liu, G., Zhao, J., Gao, D.: Degradation state 30 recognition of piston pump based on iceemdan and xgboost. Applied Sciences 10, 6593 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186593

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Meteorological Applications 15, 431–445 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1002/met.83

    Ustaoglu, B., Cigizoglu, H., Karaca, M.: Forecast of daily mean, maximum and minimum temperature time series by three artificial neural network methods. Meteorological Applications 15, 431–445 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1002/met.83

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    CoRR abs/1803.08375 (2018) 1803.08375

    Agarap, A.F.: Deep learning using rectified linear units (relu). CoRR abs/1803.08375 (2018) 1803.08375

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J.: Classification and Regres- sion Trees, 1st edn., p. 368. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, USA (1984). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470

    1984 doi

  28. [36]

    Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32 (2001) https://doi

    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32 (2001) https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ ∼cjlin/papers/libsvm.pdf

    LIBSVM: A Library for Support Vector Machines. https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ ∼cjlin/papers/libsvm.pdf

  30. [38]

    https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/glossary/xgboost/

    NVIDIA: XGBoost. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/glossary/xgboost/

  31. [39]

    https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/stable/ generated/torch.nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss.html

    PyTorch: BCEWithLogitsLoss. https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/stable/ generated/torch.nn.BCEWithLogitsLoss.html

  32. [40]

    https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/ a-comprehensive-overview-of-regression-evaluation-metrics

    NVIDIA: A Comprehensive Overview of Regression Eval- uation Metrics (2025). https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/ a-comprehensive-overview-of-regression-evaluation-metrics

    2025

  33. [41]

    https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/classification/ accuracy-precision-recall

    Google: Classification: Accuracy, recall, precision, and related metrics. https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/classification/ accuracy-precision-recall

  34. [42]

    Opitz, J.: A closer look at classification evaluation metrics and a critical reflection of common evaluation practice. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 12, 820–836 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl a 00675 https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article- pdf...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.