Evaluation of neural network models and quality forecasting based on process time‐series data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complex industrial process modelling is critically important within the context of industrial intelligence. In recent years, soft sensor techniques based on neural networks have become increasingly popular for modelling nonlinear industrial processes. This paper proposes an integrated framework of neural network modelling and evaluation for nonlinear dynamic processes. This framework achieves an integrated solution for modelling, prediction, evaluation, and network structure parameter selection. It can be applied to noisy sensors and dense data in the time domain. The framework's proposed evaluation mechanism employs two novel evaluation metrics, the variational auto‐encoder (VAE)‐based Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence metric and the maximum likelihood estimation‐based J metric, which both evaluate the model by mining the statistical properties of the residuals. The framework models the dynamic process with a model order based‐gated recurrent units (MOb‐GRU) neural network and a modified transformer model. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the evaluation mechanism functions properly in scenarios with multiple signal‐to‐noise ratios and multiple noise statistical properties and that the framework produces accurate modelling results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".