让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

原文摘要

Most fuel oil consumption (FOC) models for voyage planning are per-ship models and thus generalize poorly beyond each vessel's records. Transfer and federated learning have been reported to perform better, but under different protocols that often use inputs unavailable before departure or random data splits. It therefore remains unclear which approach performs best. In this study, we compare 11 per-ship, adaptation-based, and global methods on 21 vessels. To prevent leakage, all methods receive identical inputs known or forecast before departure, excluding engine RPM and shaft power, and are tested on intact voyage legs after all training records of each vessel. Global pooling, in which one model describes each vessel by its ship identity and seven ship specifications, performs best overall in every setting examined. For in-fleet vessels, Global LightGBM reaches an overall MAPE of 8.92%, against 11.14% for Per-Ship LightGBM, and outperforms every per-ship and adaptation-based model. Global models of five architectures, including a Transformer, all outperform the per-ship and federated models. Fine-tuning a global model for each vessel, even by low-rank adaptation of the Transformer, adds no accuracy. Without any records of a vessel, the global model reaches a median MAPE of 11.20% and outperforms a per-ship model trained on that vessel's records for 14 of 21 vessels. Adding its first records to the pooled data is as accurate as vessel-specific adaptation. Ship identity and specifications are largely interchangeable for in-fleet vessels, but only the specifications support zero-shot prediction. Its error grows as a vessel's specifications differ from the fleet's. Per-ship models and vessel-specific adaptation are therefore unnecessary under fair comparison. One global model can serve a whole fleet, including newly delivered vessels with similar specifications.