等距映射
主成分分析
降维
聚类分析
模式识别(心理学)
非线性系统
层次聚类
人工智能
非线性降维
计算机科学
维数之咒
数据挖掘
物理
量子力学
作者
Guiyong Zhang,Zihao Wang,Huakun Huang,Hang Li,Tiezhi Sun
出处
期刊:Physics of Fluids
[American Institute of Physics]
日期:2023-07-01
卷期号:35 (7)
被引量:16
摘要
In the field of fluid mechanics, dimensionality reduction (DR) is widely used for feature extraction and information simplification of high-dimensional spatiotemporal data. It is well known that nonlinear DR techniques outperform linear methods, and this conclusion may have reached a consensus in the field of fluid mechanics. However, this conclusion is derived from an incomplete evaluation of the DR techniques. In this paper, we propose a more comprehensive evaluation system for DR methods and compare and evaluate the performance differences of three DR methods: principal component analysis (PCA), isometric mapping (isomap), and independent component analysis (ICA), when applied to cavitation flow fields. The numerical results of the cavitation flow are obtained by solving the compressible homogeneous mixture model. First, three different error metrics are used to comprehensively evaluate reconstruction errors. Isomap significantly improves the preservation of nonlinear information and retains the most information with the fewest modes. Second, Pearson correlation can be used to measure the overall structural characteristics of the data, while dynamic time warping cannot. PCA performs the best in preserving the overall data characteristics. In addition, based on the uniform sampling-based K-means clustering proposed in this paper, it becomes possible to evaluate the local structural characteristics of the data using clustering similarity. PCA still demonstrates better capability in preserving local data structures. Finally, flow patterns are used to evaluate the recognition performance of flow features. PCA focuses more on identifying the major information in the flow field, while isomap emphasizes identifying more nonlinear information. ICA can mathematically obtain more meaningful independent patterns. In conclusion, each DR algorithm has its own strengths and limitations. Improving evaluation methods to help select the most suitable DR algorithm is more meaningful.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI