Prediction of bio‐oil yield during pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass using machine learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work aims to implement and use machine learning algorithms to predict the yield of bio‐oil during the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass based on the physicochemical properties and composition of the biomass feed and pyrolysis conditions. The biomass pyrolysis process is influenced by different process parameters, such as pyrolysis temperature, heating rate, composition of biomass, and purge gas flow rate. The inter‐relation between the yield of different pyrolysis products and process parameters can be well predicted by using different machine learning algorithms. In this study, different machine learning algorithms, namely, multi‐linear regression, gradient boosting, random forest, and decision tree, have been trained on the dataset and the models are compared to identify the optimum method for the determination of bio‐oil yield prediction model. Analysis of the results showed the gradient boosting method to possess a regression score of 0.97 and 0.89 for the training and testing sets with root‐mean‐squared error (RMSE) values of 1.19 and 2.39, respectively, and overcome the problem of overfitting. Therefore, the present study provides an approach to train a generalized machine learning model, which can be employed on large datasets while avoiding the error of overfitting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".