A Review on Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Wastewater Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI), as a rapidly developing and powerful tool to solve practical problems, has attracted much attention and has been widely used in various areas. Owing to their strong learning and accurate prediction abilities, all sorts of AI models have also been applied in wastewater treatment (WWT) to optimize the process, predict the efficiency and evaluate the performance, so as to explore more cost-effective solutions to WWT. In this review, we summarize and analyze various AI models and their applications in WWT. Specifically, we briefly introduce the commonly used AI models and their purposes, advantages and disadvantages, and comprehensively review the inputs, outputs, objectives and major findings of particular AI applications in water quality monitoring, laboratory-scale research and process design. Although AI models have gained great success in WWT-related fields, there are some challenges and limitations that hinder the widespread applications of AI models in real WWT, such as low interpretability, poor model reproducibility and big data demand, as well as a lack of physical significance, mechanism explanation, academic transparency and fair comparison. To overcome these hurdles and successfully apply AI models in WWT, we make recommendations and discuss the future directions of AI applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".