New Multi-Objective Optimization Techniques and Their Application to Complex Chemical Engineering Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, two new Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) techniques are developed. The two new techniques, the Objective-Based Gradient Algorithm (OBGA) and the Principal Component Grid Algorithm (PCGA), were developed with the goals of improving the accuracy and efficiency of the Pareto domain approximation relative to current MOO techniques. Both methods were compared to current MOO techniques using several test problems. It was found that both the OBGA and PCGA systematically produced a more accurate Pareto domain than current MOO techniques used for comparison, for all problems studied. The OBGA requires less computation time than the current MOO methods for relatively simple problems whereas for more complex objective functions, the computation time was larger. On the other hand, the efficiency of the PCGA was higher than the current MOO techniques for all problems tested. The new techniques were also applied to complex chemical engineering problems. The OBGA was applied to an industrial reactor producing ethylene oxide from ethylene. The optimization varied four of the reactor input parameters, and the selectivity, productivity and a safety factor related to the presence of oxygen in the reactor were maximized. From the optimization results, recommendations were made based on the ideal reactor operating conditions, and the control of key reactor parameters. The PCGA was applied to a PI controller model to develop new tuning methods based on the Pareto domain. The developed controller tuning methods were compared to several previously developed controller correlations. It was found that all previously developed controller correlations showed equal or worse performance than that based on the Pareto domain. The tuning methods were applied to a fourth order process and a process with a disturbance, and demonstrated excellent performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".