Towards good modelling practice for parallel hybrid models for wastewater 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
ABSTRACT This study explores various approaches to formulating a parallel hybrid model (HM) for Water and Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) merging a mechanistic and a data-driven model. In the study, the HM is constructed by training a neural network (NN) on the residual of the mechanistic model for effluent nitrate. In an initial experiment using the Benchmark Simulation Model no. 1, a parallel HM effectively addressed limitations in the mechanistic model's representation of autotrophic bacteria growth and the data-driven model's incapability to extrapolate. Next, different versions of a parallel HM of a large pilot-scale WRRF are constructed, using different calibration/training datasets and different versions of the mechanistic model to investigate the balance between the calibration effort for the mechanistic model and the compensation by the NN component. The HM can improve predictions compared to the mechanistic model. Training the NN on an independent validation dataset produced better results than on the calibration dataset. Interestingly, the best performance is achieved for the HM based on a mechanistic model using default (uncalibrated) parameters. Both long short-term memory (LSTM) and convolutional neural network (CNN) are tested as data-driven components, with a CNN HM (root-mean-squared error (RMSE) = 1.58 mg NO3-N/L) outperforming an LSTM HM (RMSE = 4.17 mg NO3-N/L).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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