All‐nonlinear static‐dynamic neural networks versus Bayesian machine learning for data‐driven modelling of chemical processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades, the utilization of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been explored for process modelling applications. However, different types of ML models may have contrasting advantages and disadvantages, which become critical during the optimal selection of a specific data‐driven model for a particular application as well as estimation of parameters during model training. This paper compares and contrasts two different types of data‐driven modelling approaches, namely the series/parallel all‐nonlinear static‐dynamic neural network models and models from a Bayesian ML approach. Both types of AI modelling approaches considered in this work have shown to significantly outperform several state‐of‐the‐art steady‐state and dynamic data‐driven modelling techniques for various performance measures, specifically, model sparsity, predictive capabilities, and computational expense. The performances of the proposed model structures and algorithms have been evaluated for two nonlinear dynamic chemical engineering systems—a plug‐flow reactor for vapour phase cracking of acetone for production of acetic anhydride and a pilot‐plant for post‐combustion CO 2 capture using monoethanolamine as the solvent. For the validation data from the CO 2 capture pilot plant, root mean squared error (RMSE) for flue gas outlet temperature, flowrate and CO 2 concentration is 0.05%, 1.07%, and 5.0%, respectively, for the all‐nonlinear static‐dynamic neural networks and 0.1%, 1.75%, and 14.14%, respectively, for the Bayesian ML models. For the plug flow reactor data, the Bayesian ML models yield superior RMSE compared to the all‐nonlinear static‐dynamic neural networks when the measurement data are corrupted with Gaussian, auto‐correlated, or cross‐correlated noise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".