The use of artificial neural network (ANN) in dry flue gas desulphurization modelling: Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) and Bayesian regularization (BR) algorithm comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research project aims to investigate the efficacy of artificial neural networks (ANN) in mapping dry flue gas desulphurization (DFGD). Bayesian regularization (BR) and Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) training algorithms were used for DFGD modelling. The input layer feed data contained diatomite to Ca(OH) 2 ratio, hydration time, hydration temperature, sulphation temperature, and inlet gas concentration, while the output layer metadata were sorbent conversion and sulphation responses. The hyperbolic tangent ( tansig) , sigmoid ( logsig) , and linear ( purelin ) activation functions were compared to ascertain the best network learning model. The number of hidden layer cells also varied between 7 and 10, given the existence of multiple output feed data. BR and LM performance evaluation was based on coefficient of determination ( R 2 ), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean square error (MSE) mathematical analysis. BR was a superlative training tool compared to LM, with lower RMSE and MSE values. The goodness of fit data for both techniques was close to unity, clarifying that ANN using BR and LM tools can be used to predict DGFD outcome. The shrinking core model was used to analyze the desulphurization reaction and concluding the chemical reaction was the reaction controlling step.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".