Adaptive Sampling for Surrogate Modelling with Artificial Neural Network and its Application in an Industrial Cracking Furnace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In surrogate modelling, a simple functional approximation of a complex system model is always constructed to reduce the computational expense, and the selection of a suitable surrogate model and a sampling method are key to obtaining a surrogate model for a complex system. To construct an appropriate surrogate model, three methods of adaptive surrogate modelling that use artificial neural networks (ANN) are developed by incorporating a new mechanism for automatically determining the number of hidden nodes and/or a new prediction error‐based mixed adaptive sampling method. In the automatic determination, the number of hidden nodes can adaptively change according to the effective rate of parameters in the ANN during the adaptive surrogate modelling process. As a result, an improper number of hidden nodes determined by the empirical method can be avoided. The prediction error‐based mixed adaptive sampling method is capable of finding the strong nonlinear behaviour of the underlying system, which is easily missed by the traditional prediction variance‐based sampling method. The three methods and the previous method for adaptive surrogate modelling that use ANN are tested and compared in terms of replicating the behaviours of three types of challenge functions to determine the efficacy of the developed methods. Furthermore, these methods are used in an engineering problem of surrogate modelling for a cracking reaction simulator to validate the efficacy of the developed methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".