Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

An application of machine learning to the motion response prediction of floating assets

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gradient-boosted machine learning pipeline predicts nonlinear mooring response statistics of a turret-moored vessel in real time, with held-out errors of 0.31 m for turret offset, 29.26 kN for fairlead tension, and 2.49 degrees for…

desk verdict A solid, well-executed surrogate-modeling paper with believable numbers against the simulator; the real weakness is that the claimed comparison to frequency-domain methods never happens, and field validation is still future work. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15713 v1 pith:3AAQZEWL submitted 2025-05-31 cs.LG physics.data-anphysics.flu-dyn

Michael T.M.B. Morris-Thomas , Marius Martens This is my paper
classification cs.LGphysics.data-anphysics.flu-dyn
keywords machinelearningXGBoostmooringresponsepredictionturret-mooredFPSOweathervaningextremestatisticssurrogatemodeloffshoreengineering
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 authors set out to show that a supervised machine learning workflow can replace computationally expensive time-domain simulations for predicting the nonlinear, stochastic response of a turret-moored vessel under wind, wave, and current loading. They combine a gradient-boosted ensemble regressor with a custom physics-based weathervaning solver that computes the vessel's equilibrium heading from the environmental moments. Trained on roughly one million simulated metocean-to-response samples, the best model predicts the most probable maximum turret offset to within a mean absolute error of 0.31 m, the offset direction to within 2.49 degrees, and the omni-directional fairlead tension to within 29.26 kN on a held-out 20% of the data, with coefficients of determination above 0.99. These accuracies are reached in under 30 seconds of inference, versus half an hour to hours for traditional computations, which is why the workflow has been deployed for real-time turret disconnection planning on an operational facility.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gradient-boosted tree ensemble (XGBoost), a supervised regressor that additively combines many shallow decision trees, each fit to the residual of the previous trees. It is coupled with a custom passive weathervaning solver: for each metocean condition, the equilibrium vessel heading is obtained by minimizing the potential energy associated with the net restoring moment about the turret, and that heading is fed into the model as a feature. Also load-bearing is the training-data pipeline, which uses frequency-domain screening over the full metocean catalogue, quasi-dynamic time-domain simulations for critical conditions with ten three-hour realizations and Gumbel extreme-value analysis, and finite-element dynamic amplification factors for mooring line and riser effects, yielding roughly a million samples. Angular targets are regressed as East and North components and recombined, which enforces the periodicity of directions such as the turret offset direction.

What would settle it

Collect field measurements on the deployed or an equivalent turret-moored FPSO, pairing metocean data with observed most-probable-maximum turret offsets, fairlead tensions, and offset directions over a range of sea states. If the model's errors against these measured values substantially exceed the reported held-out errors (0.31 m, 29.26 kN, 2.49 degrees) in conditions inside the training domain, the central claim that the surrogate provides operational accuracy would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a trained gradient-boosted model, using metocean features plus a physics-computed equilibrium heading, captures the nonlinear mapping from environmental conditions to extreme mooring response statistics for a passive weathervaning FPSO at 400 m water depth. Validation on a held-out set of metocean conditions yields mean absolute errors of 0.31 m for most probable maximum turret offset, 2.49 degrees for its direction, and 29.26 kN for omni-directional fairlead tension, while a linear regression baseline shows systematic bias and residuals spanning roughly -23 m to 17 m. The authors interpret this as evidence that the surrogate reproduces the response statistics of the underlying numerical model almost exactly, and that the same workflow transfers to production forecasting, where it operates on forecast and real-time buoy data with sub-30-second inference times. They further report that gradient-boosting ensembles outperform a tuned multi-layer perceptron and all other tested regressors on this tabular dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The entire training target set comes from numerical models (frequency-domain, quasi-dynamic, and finite-element simulations) rather than from measurements of an actual vessel, so the low validation errors are only meaningful for operations if those models faithfully represent the as-built facility and its environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Real-time mooring-integrity monitoring becomes practical: with inference under 30 seconds on a single CPU, operators can check forecasted extreme responses over a 72-hour window and make turret-disconnection decisions before a storm arrives.
  • The same workflow can be retargeted to other moored floating facilities whenever a sufficient set of metocean conditions and simulated response statistics is available, including side-by-side offloading and heading-control optimization.
  • The model is deliberately treated as an interpolant: production use prohibits extrapolation outside the training domain, so performance guarantees only hold for metocean conditions similar to those used in training.
  • Gradient boosting with modest hyperparameter tuning (500 trials) improves errors by up to 60% over default settings, and on this kind of tabular engineering data it outperforms a deep MLP, suggesting a practical baseline choice for similar surrogate-modeling tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported errors are surrogate errors against the same numerical pipeline that produced the training targets; if the underlying frequency-domain, quasi-dynamic, and finite-element models misrepresent the as-built vessel, real-world errors on the deployed facility could be larger than the held-out numbers, which is why the paper's listed future work of validating with field measurements is the d
  • Because the model is an interpolant by construction, its robustness in production depends on the metocean forecast staying inside the sampled domain; an anomalous sea state outside that domain would receive a prediction with no stated reliability, so operators would need a domain-coverage check as part of the monitoring system.
  • The orthogonal East/North decomposition for angular responses is a simple device that could be reused for other directional outputs, such as wave approach, current direction, or heading under active control, and may be more reliable than treating angles as ordinary scalar targets, though the paper only demonstrates it for offset direction.
  • A practical extension would be to use the same training pipeline to generate design-sensitivity information, for example how response extremes change with mooring line stiffness or draft, since the surrogate can be evaluated millions of times cheaply; the paper does not pursue this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 paper presents a supervised machine learning workflow to predict extreme mooring response statistics for a generic turret-moored FPSO in about 400 m water depth. The training set, approximately 10^6 samples, is generated by a mixed frequency-domain, quasi-dynamic, and finite-element simulation chain, and a custom quasi-static weathervaning solver provides a physics-based vessel heading feature. Seven regression models are compared; XGBoost achieves the best held-out performance on a 20% split (MAE 0.31 m for turret offset, 2.49 degrees for offset direction, 29.26 kN for fairlead tension, R^2 about 0.998). The authors state that the workflow has been deployed in production to support turret disconnection decisions.

Significance. If the held-out accuracy transfers to the physical asset, this is a practically valuable result: it reduces a 6-12 hour finite-element mooring analysis to an inference time under 30 seconds while reproducing the simulation chain closely. The paper's strengths are the unusually large and diverse metocean training set, the systematic comparison of seven regression models with hyperparameter tuning, and the integration of a physics-based weathervaning solver whose heading feature is not fit to the response targets. The weak link is not internal consistency but external validity: every label comes from the FD/QD/FE chain, and the manuscript itself acknowledges that field validation is future work. The significance is therefore conditional on simulation fidelity, and the current text overstates what has been established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 4.3] The abstract states that the model 'significantly outperform[s] traditional frequency-domain methods,' but the manuscript never executes this comparison. The only non-ML baseline is linear regression (Sec. 4.1), and frequency-domain simulations are part of the label-generation chain (Sec. 2.3), so the held-out errors cannot be interpreted as a comparison against FD predictions. Please either add a direct FD-versus-XGBoost comparison on the same validation set, reporting the same metrics, or revise the abstract and Sec. 4.3 to say the comparison is against linear regression and other ML baselines.
  2. [Sec. 4.4; Sec. 5] The deployment claim outruns the evidence. The 20% validation split is drawn from the same FD/QD/FE simulation pipeline that produced the labels, so the reported MAE and RMSE values quantify how faithfully XGBoost reproduces that pipeline, not how accurately either the pipeline or the surrogate represents the physical asset. The paper itself states in Sec. 4.4 that accuracy depends on the fidelity of the underlying numerical model and lists field validation as future work in Sec. 5, yet the abstract and conclusion call the production deployment a 'practical validation.' Please either add measured field data or explicitly reframe the production use as an engineering deployment that has not yet been accuracy-validated against the asset.
  3. [Tables 2-4; Sec. 4.3] The headline '5%' and '2.5 degrees' figures are means over the validation set and hide the tail behavior that matters for disconnection decisions. Table 3 shows XGBoost direction residuals spanning about -170 degrees to +163 degrees, Table 4 shows fairlead-tension residuals down to -1769 kN, and Table 2 shows turret-offset residuals down to -6.4 m. Please report quantile or exceedance-rate errors, and ideally condition the error analysis on the extreme sea states that trigger the operational decisions.
  4. [Sec. 2.3; Sec. 4.3] The training labels are generated by a mixed-fidelity workflow (FD screening, QD replacement for critical conditions, and FE-derived dynamic amplification factors), but the paper does not state the proportion of FD, QD, and FE-augmented labels, nor whether the held-out split preserves that mix. If the validation set is dominated by easy FD labels, the aggregate metrics overstate performance on the QD/FE critical cases. Please provide a stratified breakdown of validation errors by label-generation model, or otherwise demonstrate that the split is representative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The phrase 'a 3 x 3 single point mooring (SPM) arrangement' is ambiguous; specify the number of mooring lines and their angular spacing.
  2. [References [17], [18], [19]] References [17] and [18] contain broken URLs ('https://https://www.orcina.com/...'), and reference [19] has a typo ('Univeristy').
  3. [Figs. 4 and 6] In Figures 4 and 6, the caption text repeats the RMSE value in a way that looks like a label for R^2; clean up the annotation and ensure both axes are labeled consistently.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] Calling the 20% split an 'independent validation dataset' overstates its status; use 'held-out validation set' to avoid implying independence from the simulation pipeline.
  5. [Sec. 5] The bullet claiming 'a similar performance is anticipated for any floating facility' is an unsupported generalization; qualify it to systems with comparable mooring and metocean characteristics.
  6. [Throughout] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement; given the production context, at least a complete feature list and preprocessing description would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ML surrogate is trained on simulation-generated labels and validated on held-out simulation labels, with physical fidelity explicitly deferred to future field validation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard supervised surrogate-modeling workflow: metocean inputs and vessel parameters are fed to frequency-domain, quasi-dynamic, and finite-element models to produce response labels, and the ML models are trained to reproduce those labels from the same inputs plus a physics-based heading feature. Held-out validation (Sec. 4.3) measures how faithfully the surrogate reproduces the simulation pipeline, not physical accuracy, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Sec. 4.4: 'the model's accuracy depends on the fidelity of the underlying numerical model to represent the as-built vessel and its mooring system.' Sec. 5 lists 'validating model performance with field measurements' as planned future work. The heading feature is computed by minimizing the potential energy in Eq. (2) from environmental inputs; it is not fit to the target response statistics, so it is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renamed empirical results. The performance claims are therefore internally consistent for a surrogate of the described simulation chain; concerns about the simulation chain's fidelity to the physical asset are a validity limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claim depends entirely on the fidelity of the simulation pipeline used to generate the training targets, plus several modeling approximations inherited from offshore engineering practice. No new physical entities are introduced. The ML hyperparameters and the training subset are the only quantities chosen to fit the data, and the paper does not disclose the exact subset selection or trained model.

free parameters (2)
  • XGBoost hyperparameters and learned ensemble parameters = Not fully specified; selected by 500-trial random search
    All reported accuracy numbers are properties of this fitted object. Hyperparameters such as learning rate, tree depth, L1/L2 penalties, and the internal splits and weights are fit to the simulated training data. The paper does not release the trained model or the exact chosen hyperparameters.
  • Training data subset = Approximately 10^6 samples
    The paper uses 'a subset of a full production dataset' but does not specify how the subset was sampled from the 1.5 million metocean conditions. The choice of subset directly shapes every reported metric.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The OrcaFlex/OrcaWave numerical models faithfully represent the as-built vessel, mooring, riser, and environment interaction.
    All training targets come from these simulations (Sec. 2.2 and 2.3). If the simulator is biased, the ML model inherits the bias and the deployed predictions will be confidently wrong.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static heading equilibrium obtained by minimizing the environmental potential energy is sufficient, neglecting dynamic effects and secondary equilibria.
    Sec. 3.1 states this explicitly. The heading is a key feature for all response predictions, so errors in this assumption propagate.
  • domain assumption Frequency-domain screening plus quasi-dynamic time-domain simulations, augmented with finite-element dynamic amplification factors, yield accurate response statistics for training.
    Sec. 2.3 describes this hybrid data-generation pipeline. The FD screening and QD results must be accurate proxies for the full FE dynamics, or the targets are miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Newman's approximation for quadratic transfer functions and Aranha's formula for wave drift damping are valid at this water depth and for this hull form.
    Sec. 2.2 invokes these standard approximations. They affect the low-frequency drift forces that dominate mooring response.
  • domain assumption The metocean dataset (hindcast, kernel-density synthetic, and synthetic tropical lows) is representative of the operational environment.
    Sec. 2.1. The model is strictly an interpolant over this domain, so unrepresented conditions will not be covered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An application of machine learning to the motion response prediction of floating assets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AAQZEWL

@misc{pith2026250615713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An application of machine learning to the motion response prediction of floating assets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AAQZEWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15713}
}
abstract

The real-time prediction of floating offshore asset behavior under stochastic metocean conditions remains a significant challenge in offshore engineering. While traditional empirical and frequency-domain methods work well in benign conditions, they struggle with both extreme sea states and nonlinear responses. This study presents a supervised machine learning approach using multivariate regression to predict the nonlinear motion response of a turret-moored vessel in 400 m water depth. We developed a machine learning workflow combining a gradient-boosted ensemble method with a custom passive weathervaning solver, trained on approximately $10^6$ samples spanning 100 features. The model achieved mean prediction errors of less than 5% for critical mooring parameters and vessel heading accuracy to within 2.5 degrees across diverse metocean conditions, significantly outperforming traditional frequency-domain methods. The framework has been successfully deployed on an operational facility, demonstrating its efficacy for real-time vessel monitoring and operational decision-making in offshore environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mooring assessment approaches and a machine learning workflow. (a) Nonlinearity versus indica￾tive computation time for a typical mooring analysis: frequency domain (FD), < 10 seconds; quasi dynamic (QD), order 10 minutes (single realization); and a fully "dynamic" finite element representation of the moor￾ing system (FE), order 6–12 hours (single realization). (b) Proposed machine learning workflow for model traini… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Local and global coordinate systems for a single point mooring (SPM) system. The vessel heading in global coordinates is depicted by 𝜑 and 𝜃𝐸 denotes an environment direction (wave, wind, or current). Mooring lines (light gray) are illustrated in a 3 × 3 arrangement centered about the turret (black circle). [21] for each vessel loading condition. Its nonlinear contribution was applied directly during all time-domain… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean permutation importance for the most probable maximum turret offset. East and north com￾ponents for the environmental directions and vessel heading are denoted EAST[⋅] and NORTH[⋅], respec￾tively. Error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. Prior to hyperparameter optimization, baseline regression models for each response variable were established using standard parameters commonly referenced in lit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear Regression model performance for the most probable maximum turret offset prediction. (a) Actual versus predicted values with the solid red line denoting a perfect fit and blue contours indicating lines of equal probability density. (b) Model residuals 𝑒𝑖 with da…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A Comparison of each model’s performance after hyperparameter tuning 4.2 Single-shot performance Using more sophisticated regression models for prediction (Sec. 3.2), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: XGBoost Regression model performance for the most probable maximum turret offset prediction. (a) Actual versus predicted values with the solid red line denoting a perfect fit and blue contours indicating lines of equal probability density. (b) Model residuals 𝑒𝑖 with d…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deeplearning,

    Y.LeCun,Y.Bengio,andG.Hinton,“Deeplearning,” Nature,vol.521,no.7553,pp.436–444, May2015, issn:1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature14539.(visitedon11/29/2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14539.(visitedon11/29/2024 2024

  2. [2]

    The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction,

    P. Bauer, A. Thorpe, and G. Brunet, “The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction,” Nature,vol.525,no.7567,pp.47–55,Sep.2015, issn:1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature14956. (visitedon12/23/2024)

    doi:10.1038/nature14956 2015

  3. [3]

    Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics,

    S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, “Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,vol.52,pp.477–508,2020, issn:0066-4189,1545-4479. doi: 10.1146/annurev-fluid-010719-060214.(visitedon11/28/2024)

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010719-060214.(visitedon11/28/2024 2020

  4. [4]

    Deep Generative Models in Engineering De- sign: A Review,

    L. Regenwetter, A. H. Nobari, and F. Ahmed, “Deep Generative Models in Engineering De- sign: A Review,”Journal of Mechanical Design , vol. 144, no. 071704, 2022,issn: 1050-0472. doi: 10.1115/1.4053859.(visitedon06/16/2024)

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4053859.(visitedon06/16/2024 2022

  5. [5]

    Neuralgeneralcirculationmodelsforweatherand climate,

    D.Kochkov,J.Yuval,I.Langmore, et al.,“Neuralgeneralcirculationmodelsforweatherand climate,” Nature,vol.632,no.8027,pp.1060–1066,Aug.2024, issn:1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/ s41586-024-07744-y.(visitedon12/23/2024). 15

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Neural networks in the dy- namicresponseanalysisofslendermarinestructures,

    R. Guarize, N. A. F. Matos, L. V. S. Sagrilo, and E. C. P. Lima, “Neural networks in the dy- namicresponseanalysisofslendermarinestructures,” Applied Ocean Research,vol.29,no.4, pp. 191–198, 2007,issn: 0141-1187. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . apor . 2008 . 01 . 002. (visited on 12/26/2024)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    ANN- basedsurrogatemodelsfortheanalysisofmooringlinesandrisers,

    A.C.dePina,A.A.dePina,C.H.Albrecht,B.S.LeitePiresdeLima,andB.P.Jacob,“ANN- basedsurrogatemodelsfortheanalysisofmooringlinesandrisers,” Applied Ocean Research, vol. 41, pp. 76–86, 2013,issn: 0141-1187.doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2013.03.003 . (visited on 12/26/2024)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apor.2013.03.003 2013

  8. [8]

    MachineLearningBasedMooredShipMovement Prediction,

    A.Alvarellos,A.Figuero,H.Carro, et al.,“MachineLearningBasedMooredShipMovement Prediction,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,vol.9,no.8,p.800,2021, issn:2077-

    work page 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Real-time prediction of 6-DOF motions of a turret-moored FPSO in harsh sea state,

    X. Guo, X. Zhang, W. Lu, X. Tian, and X. Li, “Real-time prediction of 6-DOF motions of a turret-moored FPSO in harsh sea state,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 265, p. 112500, 2022,issn: 0029-8018. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112500.(visitedon11/20/2024)

    2022

  2. [10]

    A new approach to predict dynamic mooringtensionusingLSTMneuralnetworkbasedonresponsesoffloatingstructure,

    Z. Wang, D. Qiao, J. Yan, G. Tang, B. Li, and D. Ning, “A new approach to predict dynamic mooringtensionusingLSTMneuralnetworkbasedonresponsesoffloatingstructure,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 249, p. 110905, 2022,issn: 0029-8018.doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022. 110905.(visitedon11/20/2024)

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Machine-learning-basedvirtualloadsen- sorsformooringlinesusingsimulatedmotionandlidarmeasurements,

    M.Gräfe,V.Pettas,N.Dimitrov,andP.W.Cheng,“Machine-learning-basedvirtualloadsen- sorsformooringlinesusingsimulatedmotionandlidarmeasurements,” Wind Energy Science, vol.9,no.11,pp.2175–2193,2024, issn:2366-7443. doi: 10.5194/wes-9-2175-2024.(visited on12/26/2024)

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,Aug. 2016, pp. 785–794.doi: 10 .1145 / 2939672. 2939785. arXiv:1603 .02754 [cs]. (visited on 06/09/2024)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Measurementsofwind-wavegrowthandswell decay during the joint North Sea wave project (JONSWAP).,

    K.Hasselmann,T.P.Barnett,E.Bouws, et al.,“Measurementsofwind-wavegrowthandswell decay during the joint North Sea wave project (JONSWAP).,”Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift,vol.12,no.A8,pp.1–95,1973

    1973

  6. [14]

    JONSWAP’sparameters:Sortingouttheinconsistencies,

    A.W.LewisandR.N.Allos,“JONSWAP’sparameters:Sortingouttheinconsistencies,” Ocean Engineering,vol.17,no.4,pp.409–415,1990. doi: 10.1016/0029-8018(90)90032-2

    1990 doi

  7. [15]

    Recommended practice: Environmental conditions and environmental loads,

    DNV, “Recommended practice: Environmental conditions and environmental loads,” Tech. Rep.DNV-RP-C205,Sep.2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    PetroleumandNaturalGasIndustries—SpecificRequirementsforOffshoreStructures —Part1:Metoceandesignandoperatingconsiderations,

    ISO,“PetroleumandNaturalGasIndustries—SpecificRequirementsforOffshoreStructures —Part1:Metoceandesignandoperatingconsiderations,”Tech.Rep.ISO19901-1:2015,Oct. 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    [Online]

    Orcina, OrcaFlex Manual, version 11.4c, 2024. [Online]. Available:https://https://www. orcina.com/webhelp/OrcaFlex/. 16

    2024

  10. [18]

    orcina.com/webhelp/OrcaWave/

    Orcina, OrcaWave Manual,version11.4c,2024.[Online].Available: https://https://www. orcina.com/webhelp/OrcaWave/

    2024

  11. [19]

    Secondorder,slowlyvaryingforcesonvesselsinirregularwaves,

    J.N.Newman,“Secondorder,slowlyvaryingforcesonvesselsinirregularwaves,”in Proc. Int. Symp. Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and Structures in Waves,UniveristyCollege,London,UK: TheInstitutionofMechanicalEngineers,Apr.1974,pp.182–186.(visitedon12/24/2024)

    1974

  12. [20]

    Aformulafor‘wavedamping’inthedriftofafloatingbody,

    J.A.P.Aranha,“Aformulafor‘wavedamping’inthedriftofafloatingbody,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics,vol.275,pp.147–155,1994, issn:14697645. doi: 10.1017/S0022112094002314

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    Recommended Procedures and Guidelines: Estimation of Roll Damping,

    International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), “Recommended Procedures and Guidelines: Estimation of Roll Damping,” Tech. Rep. 7.5-02-07-04.5, 2021. [Online]. Available:https : //ittc.info

    2021

  14. [22]

    T.Hastie,R.Tibshirani,andJ.Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning(SpringerSeries inStatistics),2nded.SpringerNewYork,NY,2009, isbn:978-0-387-84857-0

    2009

  15. [23]

    Random Forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random Forests,”Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2001,issn: 1573-

    2001

  16. [24]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort,et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, no. 85, pp. 2825–2830, 2011,issn: 1533-7928. (visitedon12/20/2024)

    2011

  17. [25]

    LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree,

    G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley,et al., “LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree,”in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,vol.30,2017,pp.3146–3154

    2017

  18. [26]

    Random Search for Hyper-Parameter Optimization,

    J. Bergstra and Y. Bengio, “Random Search for Hyper-Parameter Optimization,”Journal of Machine Learning Research,vol.13,pp.281–305,2012. 17

    2012

  19. [565]

    doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324.(visitedon06/18/2024)

    2024 doi

  20. [1312]

    doi: 10.3390/jmse9080800.(visitedon11/20/2024)

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.