A reinforcement learning approach with masked agents for chemical process flowsheet design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study introduces two novel Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents for the design and optimization of chemical process flowsheets (CPFs): a discrete masked Proximal Policy Optimization (mPPO) and a hybrid masked Proximal Policy Optimization (mHPPO). The novelty of this work lies in the use of masking within the hybrid framework, i.e., the incorporation of expert input or design rules that allows the exclusion of actions from the agent's decision spectrum. This work distinguishes from others by seamlessly integrating masked agents with rigorous unit operations (UOs) models, that is, advanced thermodynamic and conservation balance equations, in its simulation environment to design and optimize CPF. The efficacy of these agents, along with performance comparisons, is evaluated through case studies, including one that employs a chemical engineering simulator such as ASPEN Plus®. The results of these case studies reveal learning on the part of the agents, that is, the agent is able to find viable flowsheet designs that meet the stipulated process flowsheet design requirements, for example, achieve a user‐defined product quality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".