Prediction of Individual Gas Yields of Supercritical Water Gasification of Lignocellulosic Biomass by Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supercritical water gasification (SCWG) of lignocellulosic biomass is a promising pathway for the production of hydrogen. However, SCWG is a complex thermochemical process, the modeling of which is challenging via conventional methodologies. Therefore, eight machine learning models (linear regression (LR), Gaussian process regression (GPR), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and categorical boosting regressor (CatBoost)) with particle swarm optimization (PSO) and a genetic algorithm (GA) optimizer were developed and evaluated for prediction of H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 gas yields from SCWG of lignocellulosic biomass. A total of 12 input features of SCWG process conditions (temperature, time, concentration, pressure) and biomass properties (C, H, N, S, VM, moisture, ash, real feed) were utilized for the prediction of gas yields using 166 data points. Among machine learning models, boosting ensemble tree models such as XGB and CatBoost demonstrated the highest power for the prediction of gas yields. PSO-optimized XGB was the best performing model for H2 yield with a test R2 of 0.84 and PSO-optimized CatBoost was best for prediction of yields of CH4, CO, and CO2, with test R2 values of 0.83, 0.94, and 0.92, respectively. The effectiveness of the PSO optimizer in improving the prediction ability of the unoptimized machine learning model was higher compared to the GA optimizer for all gas yields. Feature analysis using Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) based on best performing models showed that (21.93%) temperature, (24.85%) C, (16.93%) ash, and (29.73%) C were the most dominant features for the prediction of H2, CH4, CO, and CO2 gas yields, respectively. Even though temperature was the most dominant feature, the cumulative feature importance of biomass characteristics variables (C, H, N, S, VM, moisture, ash, real feed) as a group was higher than that of the SCWG process condition variables (temperature, time, concentration, pressure) for the prediction of all gas yields. SHAP two-way analysis confirmed the strong interactive behavior of input features on the prediction of gas yields.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".