MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125122272 · doi:10.18280/mmep.121221

Optimization of a Coffee Bean Roasting Machine Using Fuzzy Logic and Deep Learning Approaches

2025· article· W7125122272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I Putu Hariyadi, Andi Sofyan Anas, Bima Romadhon Parada Dian Palevi, Bayani Adam Sasaki, Mulyana

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicRoastingDeep learningDeep fryingArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coffee is a primary commodity in international trade.Post-harvest processing, particularly the roasting stage, plays a critical role in determining the final product attributes, such as flavour, aroma, colour, and bioactive compound content.Precise control during the roasting process is essential to ensure quality consistency, especially at a commercial production scale.This study aims to develop an adaptive control system to achieve a uniform roast level in coffee beans.The implemented method integrates fuzzy logic with a deep learning-based evaluation mechanism.The fuzzy logic functions as the main controller for the roaster, dynamically regulating temperature, time, and heat intensity parameters based on sensor input.Subsequently, a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) algorithm was employed as an objective evaluation system to classify the roast degree (light, medium, dark) based on images of the coffee beans.The research dataset, comprising 1,600 images of roasted coffee beans, was obtained from Kaggle.com for model training and validation, while the beans roasted by the machine were used as test data.The test results demonstrated highly reliable system performance.The fuzzy controller exhibited robust adaptability across various baking phases, and the CNN model achieved a validation accuracy of 95.83% based on the results of 5-fold cross-validation testing.These findings confirm that the integration of these two technologies successfully creates a closed-loop system capable of producing roasted coffee beans with a high degree of consistency and accuracy.This approach also significantly reduces reliance on manual assessment, which is prone to subjectivity and error.

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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207