An Overview of Software Sensor Applications in Biosystem Monitoring and Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review highlights the critical role of software sensors in advancing biosystem monitoring and control by addressing the unique challenges biological systems pose. Biosystems-from cellular interactions to ecological dynamics-are characterized by intrinsic nonlinearity, temporal variability, and uncertainty, posing significant challenges for traditional monitoring approaches. A critical challenge highlighted is that what is typically measurable may not align with what needs to be monitored. Software sensors offer a transformative approach by integrating hardware sensor data with advanced computational models, enabling the indirect estimation of hard-to-measure variables, such as stress indicators, health metrics in animals and humans, and key soil properties. This article outlines advancements in sensor technologies and their integration into model-based monitoring and control systems, leveraging the capabilities of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, wearables, remote sensing, and smart sensors. It provides an overview of common methodologies for designing software sensors, focusing on the modelling process. The discussion contrasts hypothetico-deductive (mechanistic) models with inductive (data-driven) models, illustrating the trade-offs between model accuracy and interpretability. Specific case studies are presented, showcasing software sensor applications such as the use of a Kalman filter in greenhouse control, the remote detection of soil organic matter, and sound recognition algorithms for the early detection of respiratory infections in animals. Key challenges in designing software sensors, including the complexity of biological systems, inherent temporal and individual variabilities, and the trade-offs between model simplicity and predictive performance, are also discussed. This review emphasizes the potential of software sensors to enhance decision-making and promote sustainability in agriculture, healthcare, and environmental monitoring.
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) | 0.001 | 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".