Time-Aware Validation of Machine Learning Fuel Consumption Models: Evidence from 1,Hz Operational Data, CCGS \textit{Sir Wilfrid Laurier}

Validating a model on a time series asks for three things at once: each training run should use most of the sample (sufficiency), the test sets should together cover most of the sample (coverage), and training data should come before test data (causality). We prove that the three cannot be had together and price each one. Let $α$ be the smallest training fraction over folds, $β$ the fraction of the sample covered by tests, $Λ$ the fraction of the sample used as training data from the future of a test point, and $δ$ the distance from a test point to the nearest training point in its future. Every scheme on a sample of length $T$ satisfies $α+β\le 1+Λ$ and $α+\min\{β,δ/T\} \le 1$, and under $β$-mixing the leakage bias at a test point is at most $2Mβ_{\mathrm{mix}}(δ)$. In words: going beyond the causal frontier $α+β=1$ requires training on the future; that future data must sit within $(1-α)T$ of a test point; and its harm depends on its distance, not its amount. Hence expanding walk-forward is exactly the Pareto frontier of causal validation, $k$-fold cross-validation buys the most future data, and purged $k$-fold with an embargo pays in distance instead, which is cheap when the process forgets quickly but cannot repair the part of causality demanded by non-stationarity. On pure noise, shuffled 5-fold reports an information coefficient of $+0.32$, while contiguous 5-fold, using the same amount of future data, reports $+0.004$.

This study investigates supervised machine learning techniques for identifying ship hydrodynamic coefficients from CFD-generated data from free-running simulations. Specifically, ordinary least squares and regularized regression methods are applied to Abkowitz-type manoeuvring models. Training and validation datasets are derived from URANS simulations of zig-zag and turning circle manoeuvres, which are validated against experimental benchmark data. The analysis evaluates the effects of coefficient set size, minimum training length required for predictive model training, and manoeuvre combinations on model performance. Results demonstrate the suitability of large-angle zig-zag manoeuvres for hydrodynamic system identification, provided that multicollinearity is addressed through appropriate coefficient selection, regression models, or input data variability. Larger coefficient sets offer greater model flexibility for variable conditions but are more prone to multicollinearity. Regularized regression techniques effectively mitigate multicollinearity and notably enhance prediction accuracy, as does incorporating more diverse manoeuvring data. Among tested models, Ridge regression provided the best compromise between computational efficiency and prediction accuracy.

Time series forecasting (TSF) underpins consequential decisions in energy, transportation, finance, and healthcare, yet TSF models are almost universally ranked by a single number (e.g., average error) on clean held-out data, under the implicit assumption that it predicts deployed reliability. However, real faults are not i.i.d noise but structured events with temporal shape, broken cross-variable dependencies, regime change coupled with missingness, and causal propagation across a sensing pipeline. Treating TSF robustness as a data-quality problem, we present TS-Fault, a benchmark that evaluates forecasting models under explicit, parameterized fault scenarios with controllable semantic difficulty. TS-Fault organizes recurring failures into four modes along two orthogonal axes (observation- vs mechanism-level; univariate vs multivariate) and injects each fault into the most prediction-critical window via a unified importance score. This design enables robustness to be tested against the structures models actually rely on, rather than reduced to generic noise sensitivity. We evaluate 21 models across 6 datasets, 4 modes, and 5 difficulty levels under a paired clean/corrupt protocol. The results reveal three findings that contradict common leaderboard intuition: (i) clean-data accuracy anti-correlates with robustness; (ii) clean rankings are preserved under observation-level faults but reshuffled under mechanism-level faults; and (iii) all catastrophic failures occur under mechanism-level faults, with foundation models achieving the highest clean-data accuracy yet exhibiting the greatest fragility. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Ray-zyy/TS-Fault.