MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415490125 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70129

Online optimization of simulated moving bed processes based on deep learning models

2025· article· en· W4415490125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ling Li, Xufan Li, Yuhuan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorArtificial neural networkSet (abstract data type)ComputationOptimization problemEstimation theoryModel parameterOptimal controlNetwork model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Due to the lengthy computation times required by the mechanistic model of the simulated moving bed (SMB) separation process, applying it directly to online optimization and control is challenging. To address this issue, this paper proposes replacing the traditional mechanistic model with a deep learning–based surrogate, enabling real‐time optimization of the SMB process. The optimization strategy's control unit comprises two components: a model parameter estimator and an operational parameter optimizer. The model parameter estimator employs a dung beetle optimization (DBO) algorithm to tune a convolutional neural network combined with a bidirectional long short‐term memory network and a multi‐head attention mechanism (DBO‐CNN‐BiLSTM‐MHA). The operational parameter optimizer consists of a deep neural network (DNN) and a multi‐objective dung beetle optimization (MODBO) algorithm. During operation, when product purity falls below the required level due to stationary‐phase degradation, the model parameter estimator predicts the current model parameters and passes them to the operational parameter optimizer. The optimizer then determines the optimal operating conditions to simultaneously maximize purity and productivity. Simulation results demonstrate that both models achieve high prediction accuracy on the test set and that the proposed online optimization strategy can continuously adapt operating parameters in response to constant‐rate stationary‐phase degradation, thereby maintaining high product purity and productivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicIntravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207