Data-Driven Machine Learning Approach for Predicting the Higher Heating Value of Different Biomass Classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher heating values (HHV) is a very useful parameter for assessing the design and large-scale operation of biomass-driven energy systems. HHV is conventionally measured experimentally with an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter. This procedure is often time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, limited access to the required facilities is the main bottleneck for researchers. Empirical linear and nonlinear models have initially been proposed to address these concerns. However, most of the models showed discrepancies with experimental results. Data-driven machine learning (ML) methods have also been adopted for HHV predictions due to their suitability for nonlinear problems. However, most ML correlations are based on proximate or ultimate analysis. In addition, the models are only applicable to either the originator biomass or one specific type. To address these shortcomings, a total of 227 biomass datasets based on four classes of biomass, including agricultural residue, industrial waste, energy crop, and woody biomass, were employed to develop and verify three different ML models, namely artificial neural network (ANN), decision tree (DT) and random forest (RF). The model incorporates proximate and ultimate analysis data and biomass as input features. RF model is identified as the most reliable because of its lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.01 and mean squared error (MSE) of 1.87. The study findings can be used to predict HHV accurately without performing experiments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".