Applying Recurrent Neural Networks and Blocked Cross-Validation to Model Conventional Drinking Water Treatment Processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it