Next Article in Journal
Metabolic Engineering of Escherichia coli for Xylitol Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Production of High-Value-Added Biomass by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using Lignocellulosic Substrate
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Essential Oils on Inhibiting Biogenic Amine-Producing Bacteria in Xinjiang Smoked Horsemeat Sausage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Diluted Acid Hydrolysate of Olive Stones: Overliming and Biomass Fermentation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Evaluation of Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion

Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2025, 11(3), 130; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11030130
Submission received: 30 January 2025 / Revised: 17 February 2025 / Accepted: 24 February 2025 / Published: 7 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Bioprocesses for Waste Valorization)

Abstract

This study provides a comparative evaluation of several ensemble model constructions for the prediction of specific methane yield (SMY) from anaerobic digestion. From the authors’ knowledge based on existing research, present knowledge of their prediction accuracy and utilization in anaerobic digestion modeling relative to individual machine learning methods is incomplete. Three input datasets from compiled anaerobic digestion samples using agricultural and forestry lignocellulosic residues from previous studies were used in this study. A total of six individual machine learning methods and five ensemble constructions were evaluated per dataset, whose prediction accuracy was assessed using a robust 10-fold cross-validation in 100 repetitions. Ensemble models outperformed individual methods in one out of three datasets in terms of prediction accuracy. They also produced notably lower coefficients of variation in root-mean-square error (RMSE) than most accurate individual methods (0.031 to 0.393 for dataset A, 0.026 to 0.272 for dataset B, and 0.021 to 0.217 for dataset AB), being much less prone to randomness in the training and test data split. The optimal ensemble constructions generally benefited from the higher number of individual methods included, as well as from their diversity in terms of prediction principles. Since the reporting of prediction accuracy based on final model fitting and the single split-sample approach is highly prone to randomness, the adoption of a cross-validation in multiple repetitions is proposed as a standard in future studies.
Keywords: specific methane yield; agricultural and forestry lignocellulosic residues; cross-validation; prediction accuracy; support vector machine; random forest specific methane yield; agricultural and forestry lignocellulosic residues; cross-validation; prediction accuracy; support vector machine; random forest

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Radočaj, D.; Jurišić, M. Comparative Evaluation of Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion. Fermentation 2025, 11, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11030130

AMA Style

Radočaj D, Jurišić M. Comparative Evaluation of Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion. Fermentation. 2025; 11(3):130. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11030130

Chicago/Turabian Style

Radočaj, Dorijan, and Mladen Jurišić. 2025. "Comparative Evaluation of Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion" Fermentation 11, no. 3: 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11030130

APA Style

Radočaj, D., & Jurišić, M. (2025). Comparative Evaluation of Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion. Fermentation, 11(3), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11030130

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop