MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318359433 · doi:10.1021/ie102103w

Stochastic Nonlinear Optimization for Robust Design of Catalysts

2011· article· en· W2318359433 on OpenAlexaff
Chang Jun Lee, Vinay Prasad, Jong Min Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationParticle swarm optimizationStochastic optimizationNonlinear systemComputer scienceRobust optimizationStochastic programmingOptimization problemNonlinear programmingPopulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational methods for designing an optimal catalyst have recently received much attention, especially for energy-related applications. What is lacking in the previous methods is an explicit method to handle uncertainties in the complex models used, so that a robust design is achieved. This work proposes a stochastic optimization method for designing a robust catalyst. In particular, reactions involved in catalytic decomposition of ammonia are presented, and uncertainties associated with experimental determination of kinetic parameters are represented as exogenous variables with assumed probability distributions. The problem is formulated in terms of finding the optimal binding energies that maximize conversion in a microreactor. The resulting stochastic optimization problem is nonlinear, and involves the expectation operator as well as integration in the objective function. This difficult optimization problem is tackled by a population sample based approach, referred to as particle swarm optimization. The results show that the value of solving the stochastic problem is significant, and that it can provide a more robust solution compared to the certainty equivalence approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.089 · 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207