Prediction of asphaltene adsorption capacity of clay minerals using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A thorough understanding of asphaltene adsorption on clay minerals is particularly important in oil production and contaminated soil remediation using clay‐based adsorbents. In this paper, we introduced a machine learning approach as a reliable alternative for commonly used adsorption isotherms that suffer from inherent limitations in the prediction of asphaltene adsorption onto clay minerals. Machine learning (ML) models, namely multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and committee machine intelligent system (CMIS) combined with two optimizers were used. Experimental data (142 data points for six different clay minerals) was used for the modelling. To improve the accuracy of the smart models, a comprehensive data preparation such as outlier removal and feature selection was carried out. The results showed that relatively all the proposed models predict asphaltene adsorption on clay minerals with acceptable precision. Nevertheless, the MLP model showed superior performance compared with other models in which the overall root mean square error (RMSE) and coefficient of determination (R2) values of 6.72 and 0.93 were obtained, respectively. Finally, the developed MLP model was compared with the well‐known adsorption isotherms of Langmuir and Freundlich and exhibited superior 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".