MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine learning in process systems engineering: Challenges and opportunities

2023· article· en· W4388915050 on OpenAlexaff
Pródromos Daoutidis, Jay H. Lee, Srinivas Rangarajan, Leo H. Chiang, R. Bhushan Gopaluni, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Iiro Harjunkoski, Mehmet Mercangöz, Ali Mesbah, Fani Boukouvala, Fernando V. Lima, Ehecatl Antonio del Rio‐Chanona, Christos Georgakis

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExposition (narrative)Session (web analytics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Process (computing)Subject (documents)Transformational leadershipComputer scienceAnalyticsData scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringWorld Wide WebManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This “white paper” is a concise perspective of the potential of machine learning in the process systems engineering (PSE) domain, based on a session during FIPSE 5, held in Crete, Greece, June 27–29, 2022. The session included two invited talks and three short contributed presentations followed by extensive discussions. This paper does not intend to provide a comprehensive review on the subject or a detailed exposition of the discussions; instead its aim is to distill the main points of the discussions and talks, and in doing so, highlight open problems and directions for future research. The general conclusion from the session was that machine learning can have a transformational impact on the PSE domain enabling new discoveries and innovations, but research is needed to develop domain-specific techniques for problems in molecular/material design, data analytics, optimization, and control. • A concise perspective is provided on the potential of machine learning in the process systems engineering (PSE) domain. • Machine learning was thought to have a transformational potential enabling new discoveries and innovations. • The need to further develop domain-specific techniques was pointed out.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueComputers & Chemical EngineeringSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207