Predicting xylose yield from prehydrolysis of hardwoods: A machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemicelluloses are amorphous polymers of sugar molecules that make up a major fraction of lignocellulosic biomasses. They have applications in the bioenergy, textile, mining, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries. Industrial use of hemicellulose often requires that the polymer be hydrolyzed into constituent oligomers and monomers. Traditional models of hemicellulose degradation are kinetic, and usually only appropriate for limited operating regimes and specific species. The study of hemicellulose hydrolysis has yielded substantial data in the literature, enabling a diverse data set to be collected for general and widely applicable machine learning models. In this paper, a dataset containing 1955 experimental data points on batch hemicellulose hydrolysis of hardwood was collected from 71 published papers dated from 1985 to 2019. Three machine learning models (ridge regression, support vector regression and artificial neural networks) are assessed on their ability to predict xylose yield and compared to a kinetic model. Although the performance of ridge regression was unsatisfactory, both support vector regression and artificial neural networks outperformed the simple kinetic model. The artificial neural network outperformed support vector regression, reducing the mean absolute error in predicting soluble xylose yield of test data to 6.18%. The results suggest that machine learning models trained on historical data may be used to supplement experimental data, reducing the number of experiments needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".