MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106786231 · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9033-6_8

Operator-In-The-Loop Bayesian Optimization Toward Optimal Process Operation

2025· book-chapter· en· W7106786231 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in control and information sciences · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian optimizationProcess (computing)Key (lock)Bayesian probabilityOperator (biology)Process systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal process operation is crucial for maintaining system resilience, playing a key role in ensuring operations to continue safely and without interruption even during system failures. This process involves identifying, diagnosing, and fixing causes within a system to restore its function and prevent further issues. However, many current methods rely heavily on machines and computers, which can encounter errors or become trapped in less-than-optimal conditions. They often overlook the valuable insights gained from operators’ years of experience. To address this gap, this chapter presents a novel approach using operator-in-the-loop Bayesian optimization, which combines Bayesian optimization techniques with operator expertise. The proposed method is demonstrated through a case study of a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production plant, modeled in Aspen HYSYS, and further validated for its practical use with an experimental continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) setup.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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