Are Artificial Neural Networks the Right Tool for Modelling and Control of Batch and Batch-Like Processes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of batch and batch-like operations, in conjunction with the continued resurgence of artificial intelligence techniques for clustering and classification applications, has increasingly motivated the exploration of the applicability of deep learning for modeling and feedback control of batch and batch-like processes. To this end, the present study seeks to evaluate the viability of artificial intelligence in general, and neural networks in particular, toward process modeling and control via a case study. Nonlinear autoregressive with exogeneous input (NARX) networks are evaluated in comparison with subspace models within the framework of model-based control. A batch polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) polymerization process is chosen as a simulation test-bed. Subspace-based state-space models and NARX networks identified for the process are first compared for their predictive power. The identified models are then implemented in model predictive control (MPC) to compare the control performance for both modeling approaches. The comparative analysis reveals that the state-space models performed better than NARX networks in predictive power and control performance. Moreover, the NARX networks were found to be less versatile than state-space models in adapting to new process operation. The results of the study indicate that further research is needed before neural networks may become readily applicable for the feedback control of batch processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".