Artificial intelligence‐based process control in chemical, biochemical, and biomedical engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the last three decades, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly and vigorously utilized for process control in chemical, biochemical, and biomedical engineering. These disciplines frequently involve fairly sophisticated processes under risks of operational upsets, and thus have an ever increasing demand of superior control strategies. As the deployment of AI in process control pushes the limits in this regard, the research advances, which are multitudinous and varied, need to be assimilated and organized to help promote further utilization and progress in the field. To that end, we examine more than 280 relevant research publications, and systematically collate the information. The AI‐based technologies are classified, and their over‐arching control paradigm is presented. Common AI‐based control technologies are then presented, which are based on expert systems, fuzzy logic, artificial neural networks, nature‐inspired algorithms, and hybrid approaches. Their working principles, types, and implementations are summarized along with advantages, limitations, and comparisons, if available. Important applications in the above disciplines are included with the help of tables that capture important details. A discussion is also provided on advanced and newly emerging AI‐based control technologies with pertinent applications. Overall trends are analyzed, and future prospects are identified based on the survey.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".