Applying Recurrent Neural Networks and Blocked Cross-Validation to Model Conventional Drinking Water Treatment Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The jar test is the current standard method for predicting the performance of a conventional drinking water treatment (DWT) process and optimizing the coagulant dose. This test is time-consuming and requires human intervention, meaning it is infeasible for making continuous process predictions. As a potential alternative, we developed a machine learning (ML) model from historical DWT plant data that can operate continuously using real-time sensor data without human intervention for predicting clarified water turbidity 15 min in advance. We evaluated three types of models: multilayer perceptron (MLP), the long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN), and the gated recurrent unit (GRU) RNN. We also employed two training methodologies: the commonly used holdout method and the theoretically correct blocked cross-validation (BCV) method. We found that the RNN with GRU was the best model type overall and achieved a mean absolute error on an independent production set of as low as 0.044 NTU. We further found that models trained using BCV typically achieve errors equal to or lower than their counterparts trained using holdout. These results suggest that RNNs trained using BCV are superior for the development of ML models for DWT processes compared to those reported in earlier literature.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".