MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979934682 · doi:10.1021/ie049667a

Feature Selection Methods for Multiphase Reactors Data Classification

2005· article· en· W1979934682 on OpenAlexaff
Laurentiu A. Tarca, Bernard P. A. Grandjean, Faı̈çal Larachi

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Dimensionality reductionData miningk-nearest neighbors algorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of reliable data-driven classifiers able to predict flow regimes in trickle beds or bed initial behavior (contraction/expansion) in three-phase fluidized beds requires as a first step the identification of a restrained number of salient variables among all the numerous available features. Reduction of dimensionality of the feature space is urged by the fact that lesser training samples may be required and/or more reliable estimates for the classifier parameters may be achieved and/or improvement in accuracy can be achieved. This work investigates several methodologies to identify the relevant features in two classification problems belonging to a multiphase reactor context. Relevance of the subsets was assessed using mutual information between the subsets and the class variable (filter approach) and by the accuracy rate of a one-nearest neighbor classifier (wrapper approach). Algorithms for generating feasible sets to maximize these relevance criteria that were investigated were the sequential forward selection and the plus- l -take away r . Another conceptually different method to feature ranking that was tested was based on the Garson's saliency indices derived from the weights of classification neural networks. Reliability of the feature selection methodologies was first evaluated on two benchmark problems (a synthetic problem and the Anderson's iris data). They were henceforth applied to the two multiphase reactors classification problems with the goal of identifying the most appropriate features subsets to be used into classifiers. Finally, a new feature selection algorithm which combines filter and wrapper techniques proved to yield the same solutions as the wrapper technique while being less computationally expensive.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207