MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementing Recurrent Neural Networks in Process Systems Engineering applications, the right way!

2025· article· en· W4407087222 on OpenAlexafffund
Aswin Chandrasekar, Tyler Wortley, Euan Bohm, Prashant Mhaskar

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProcess (computing)Artificial neural networkComputer scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manuscript identifies, addresses and illustrates via comparisons an inconsistency and inaccuracy with the implementation of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) on naturally occurring dynamical processes, particularly focusing on implementations that claim to identify input–output dynamic relationships through a state–space representation. While the RNN structure does lend itself to these types of problems, there are two major issues with how RNNs are typically structured and trained in this context. Firstly, the hidden states of the model are commonly reinitialized or discarded between each of the input–output sequences in the training data set, essentially leading to a framework where the initial state for each sequence is not trained. In contrast, in a typical state–space model identification framework, the model parameters along with the states are (and need to be) identified together. Secondly, the model structure of the RNN is different from a classic state space (SS) representation. While in state space representations the current state is defined to be a function of the state and input from the previous time step, RNNs use input from the same time step. In this paper, two changes are proposed to address these inconsistencies. The first step is to train the initial hidden states for the training sequences. To address the structural inconsistency between a state space model and the RNN, the list of hidden states retrieved from the RNN is formatted to represent the data and state pairings that a state space model would create. The effect of these corrections is demonstrated in the simplest of dynamical systems — data generated using a Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) state space model. The importance of both these corrections is demonstrated by implementing them one at a time. Interestingly, the model that performed the worst in testing was the model with only the trained hidden states. The model with no changes was slightly better, and the model with the correct input timing but no trained hidden states increased performance by a significant amount. Finally, the best results were found when both changes were implemented. • Dynamic process modeling using Recurrent Neural Networks. • State space representation of dynamic systems form the basis for the proposed approach. • Previous RNN applications inconsistent with state space representation, hence fundamentally incorrect. • Proposed fixes shows great improvement in prediction accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers & Chemical EngineeringSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207