Machine-learning-aided thermochemical treatment of biomass: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermochemical treatment is a promising technique for biomass disposal and valorization. Recently, machine learning (ML) has been extensively used to predict yields, compositions, and properties of biochar, bio-oil, syngas, and aqueous phases produced by the thermochemical treatment of biomass. ML demonstrates great potential to aid the development of thermochemical processes. The present review aims to 1) introduce the ML schemes and strategies as well as descriptors of the input and output features in thermochemical processes; 2) summarize and compare the up-to-date research in both ML-aided wet (hydrothermal carbonization/liquefaction/gasification) and dry (torrefaction/pyrolysis/gasification) thermochemical treatment of biomass (i.e., predicting the yields, compositions, and properties of oil/char/gas/aqueous phases as well as thermal conversion behavior or kinetics); and 3) identify the gaps and provide guidance for future studies concerning how to improve predictive performance, increase generalizability, aid mechanistic and application studies, and effectively share data and models in the community. The development of biomass thermochemical treatment processes is envisaged to be greatly accelerated by ML in the near future.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".