MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985134713 · doi:10.1109/med.2010.5547730

Support Vector Regression for soft sensor design of nonlinear processes

2010· article· en· W1985134713 on OpenAlexafffund
Saneej B. Chitralekha, Sirish L. Shah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSoft sensorSupport vector machineComputer scienceNonlinear systemProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Soft computingScale (ratio)Machine learningControl engineeringData miningEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of soft sensor development has gained significant importance in the recent past with the development of efficient and easily employable computational tools for this purpose. The basic idea is to convert the information contained in the input-output data collected from the process into a mathematical model. Such a mathematical model can be used as a cost efficient substitute for hardware sensors. The Support Vector Regression (SVR) tool is one such computational tool that has recently received much attention in the system identification literature, especially because of its successes in building nonlinear blackbox models. In this work we demonstrate the application of SVR as an efficient and easy-to-use tool for developing soft sensors for nonlinear processes. In an industrial case study, we illustrate the development of a steady state Melt Index soft sensor for an industrial scale Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) polymer extrusion process using SVR. The SVR based soft sensor, valid over a wide range of melt indices, outperformed the existing nonlinear least squares based soft sensor in terms of lower prediction errors. Through a second case study, we demonstrate the application of SVR for developing soft sensors in the form of dynamic models for a laboratory scale twin screw polymer extrusion process.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207