Mining the synergistic effect in hydrothermal co-liquefaction of real feedstocks through machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrothermal co-liquefaction (co-HTL) of different feedstocks has received much research attention, not only because its significant importance in real industrial applications, but also due to the potential synergy in biocrude yield by tuning mixed feedstock’s biochemical composition and reaction conditions. Although some attempts have been made to search for the synergy from co-liquefying various feedstocks, these processes were remarkably time and labor consuming, and often with low rate of success. Therefore, this study for the first time employed machine learning algorithms to mine the synergistic effect in co-HTL. Started with single task prediction, three machine learning algorithms, including Adaboost, Gradient Boosting Regression and Random Forest, were trained and tested for predicting co-HTL biocrude yield and relative co-liquefaction effect (CE). It was found that their prediction performances were favorable over traditional mathematical equations, in which Gradient Boosting Regression exhibited the best performance for co-HTL biocrude yield prediction (training and testing R 2 of 0.976 and 0.812 respectively), and Adaboost better estimated relative CE. Feature importance analysis further revealed that co-HTL biocrude yield was mainly influenced by the reaction temperature, but relative CE was closely related to mixed feedstock’s lipid and carbohydrate content, implying that the synergism/antagonism from co-HTL was more dependent on the biochemical composition of mixed feedstock than reaction conditions. Multitask predictions, estimating biocrude yield and relative CE simultaneously that are usually required in real co-HTL practices, suggested Adaboost was the most satisfying algorithm (training R 2 of 0.922) among studied ones. An optimal relative CE of 22.07 % along with 36.31 wt% (daf) biocrude yield could be obtained when the mixed feedstock contained 42.93 % protein, 50.49 % carbohydrate, 6.58 % lipid at a temperature of 320 °C, which were in well agreement with experimental results from co-HTL of biomass model components. A mini application software (exe. file including machine learning algorithm) was also developed for quick estimation of synergy and co-HTL biocrude yield by simply inputting mixed feedstock’s biochemical composition and reaction conditions, showing promising potential for academic and industrial practices to mine the co-HTL synergy and design processes efficiently.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".