Classification of Profit-Based Operating Regions for the Tennessee Eastman Process using Deep Learning Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this work is on the classification of an input-design space into different regions of input conditions that result in different corresponding ranges of productivity costs in the Tennessee Eastman Process (TEP). Although similar classification tasks had been previously carried out using linear multivariate statistical data analysis methods, these are of limited efficacy when dealing with highly non-linear dynamics. In this work, we present two Deep Learning Tools for classification: using either supervised learning or un-supervised learning. For classification with supervised learning a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) known as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) is trained on normalized training data. Since deep learning networks generally involve a large number of nodes and parameters an algorithm named Sequential Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (SLRPFP) is proposed for selecting the relevant inputs and for pruning the LSTM network such that the test accuracy at each step is maintained or even improved. For classification with unsupervised learning, main features from the input dataset are first extracted using an Autoencoder. Then a Multi-dimensional Support Vector Machines (MSVM) model is applied to the features identified by the autoencoder. The performance of the proposed supervised and unsupervised deep learning approaches are compared to an approach that combines linear Dynamic Principal Component Analysis (DPCA) and a MSVM based classification and conclusions are drawn on the relative advantages of the deep learning 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it