Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Federated Learning from Molecules to Processes: A Perspective

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Chemical companies can jointly train ML models via federated learning without exposing proprietary data, and the resulting models beat local training and nearly match combined-data training.

desk verdict A readable perspective with two honest proof-of-concept demos; the molecular case study is the stronger evidence, while the process-scale win is a transfer-like setting the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18525 v1 pith:474OPZBM submitted 2025-06-23 cs.LG physics.chem-ph

Jan G. Rittig , Clemens Kortmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.chem-ph
keywords federatedlearningchemicalengineeringdatasilosgraphneuralnetworksactivitycoefficientssystemidentificationdistillationcolumnprivacy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that chemical companies' proprietary data need not stay an obstacle to large-scale machine learning. It proposes federated learning, in which companies train models locally and share only model parameters, as the way to pool training signal while keeping data private. Two simulated collaborations support the claim: a graph-neural-network model for binary-mixture activity coefficients and an autoencoder-based model for distillation-column dynamics both improve markedly over company-private training. In the process case, federated training cuts the target company's prediction error by an order of magnitude, to roughly the level of a model trained on a full data set.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is FedAvg (Federated Averaging): a server broadcasts the global model to clients, each client trains it on local data, and parameters are aggregated by weighted averaging across communication rounds, so training signal is pooled without data leaving the company. The two case studies embed FedAvg in, respectively, a graph neural network that forms a mixture fingerprint from solute and solvent molecular graphs before predicting activity coefficients, and a Koopman-style Wiener model that sandwiches a linear state-space model between an encoder and decoder to forecast distillation-column dynamics. The RIPtoP metric (relative improvement of proximity to perfection) converts raw errors into the fraction of the gap to a perfect model that federated learning closes, which is how the paper quantifies benefit.

What would settle it

Re-run Case Study II with clients whose columns differ beyond vapor flow rate, such as different numbers of trays, feed stages, or mixtures, and check whether the target company's five-hour prediction MSE still drops from about $1.44\times 10^{-3}$ toward $1.3\times 10^{-4}$; if it stays near the private-data baseline, the similar-dynamics assumption is the reason the result held. For the molecular case, partition the activity-coefficient data by fully disjoint solute scaffolds; if the global model then no longer beats the data-richest client's local model, the federated benefit depends on scaffold overlap rather than on the federated mechanism itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that ML models jointly trained with federated learning are significantly more accurate than models trained by each chemical company on its private data alone, and can perform nearly as well as models trained on a combined, centralized data set. In the even-random molecular case, the federated global model reaches a test MSE of $0.050$, close to the centralized model's $0.046$ and below the $0.064$ average of the individually trained clients. In the uneven-scaffold case, where clients keep their prediction heads private and share only the embedding layers, federated training still closes 47% of the gap between the local-model baseline and a perfect model. In the process-scale case, a company with only two trajectories reaches a multi-step prediction MSE of $1.33\times 10^{-4}$ through federated training, versus $1.44\times 10^{-3}$ when training on its own data, corresponding to a 91% RIPtoP.

Load-bearing premise

The process-scale case study assumes that five distillation columns differing only in vapor flow rate have sufficiently similar dynamics that one global model trained on $V$ values of 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, and 2.0 kmol/s transfers to $V=1.9$ kmol/s; if real companies run structurally different processes, the demonstrated gain may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the case-study results hold, chemical companies can jointly train predictive models on proprietary data sets without shipping data, so data scarcity ceases to be a reason to forgo machine learning.
  • Partially shared models, where only embedding layers are shared and prediction heads stay private, still deliver most of the benefit, giving a privacy-preserving middle ground for collaboration.
  • A company with very scarce process data can reach accuracy comparable to full-data training by joining a federation of similar processes, as the distillation case shows.
  • The same federated workflow is transferable to flowsheet digitization, anomaly detection, process design, and other chemical-engineering tasks where data is locked in silos.
  • Federated training offers a practical stand-in for the infeasible centralized ideal, since aggregating proprietary data across competitors is not a real option.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would expect the strongest industrial payoff where data heterogeneity is moderate and the shared input structure is standard, such as common unit operations run at different operating points, because the process case study only demonstrates transfer across vapor flow rates.
  • If federated models generalize this well, the economic value of a company's data may shift from exclusive custody toward contribution to a federation, which would make data valuation and fair incentive design central business questions.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the molecular case with strictly disjoint chemical spaces across clients; if the global model's advantage shrinks, the benefit depends on overlap in molecular scaffold space rather than on the federated mechanism alone.
  • Adversarial model extraction, already studied for drug-discovery federated learning, becomes more serious at process scale because shared model parameters may encode operating conditions; the paper lists this as an open research direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective paper argues that federated learning (FL) offers a way for chemical companies to jointly train machine learning models on proprietary data without disclosing the data. The authors review FL fundamentals, discuss potential ChemE applications, and present two case studies: (i) graph neural network prediction of infinite-dilution activity coefficients in binary mixtures under an even-random and an uneven-scaffold data partition, and (ii) Koopman autoencoder system identification of a distillation column, where one target company has only two trajectories and four source companies have 192 trajectories each. The results indicate that the federated global model approaches centralized performance in the molecular case and yields an order-of-magnitude error reduction for the target company in the process case. The central claim is that FL provides significantly higher accuracy than isolated training and can perform similarly to centralized training on combined data.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful proof-of-concept for cross-silo FL in chemical engineering, complementing existing pharmaceutical examples with a molecular property prediction task and a process system identification task. The strengths are the open-source code and data repositories, the use of a realistic non-iid molecular scenario (uneven-scaffold with FedPer), and the clear reporting of the FedAvg workflow. The molecular case study is a credible demonstration that FL can approach centralized accuracy. The process case study is more limited than the abstract suggests, because the gain for the target company is largely attributable to near-identical source dynamics and is not isolated from simple one-way transfer. The paper's evidence thus supports a conditional proof-of-concept rather than the broad general claim in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.4, Fig. 9] The process-scale FL result does not isolate the FL mechanism from one-way transfer. Because FedAvg weights updates by dataset size (Sec. 2.1, Eq. 1) and the target contributes only 2 of 770 trajectories, the global model is essentially a model trained on the four source clients' data. The reported MSE drop from 1.44e-3 to 1.33e-4 is therefore consistent with simply transferring any source-trained model to the target. Please add a baseline in which the target receives a model trained on one source client (or a simple average of source models) without federated communication rounds, and optionally a fine-tuned version on the target's 2 trajectories, to support the claim that the collaborative FL loop specifically provides the benefit.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.4, final paragraph] The paper's own heterogeneity caveat undermines the broad abstract claim. The authors state that 'the system responses for different vapor flow rates show similar dynamics' (Fig. 8) and call more heterogeneous dynamics future work. Real industrial processes differ in configuration, control structure, feedstocks, and operating ranges, as the paper acknowledges in Sec. 3.2. The current evidence therefore does not support the general statement that FL yields significantly higher accuracy for process-scale system identification. Either temper the abstract and conclusion to a homogeneous-column proof-of-concept or add an experiment with structurally different columns (e.g., varying tray count, feed composition, or control structure).
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2 and Sec. 4.2.4] The abstract claims that FL 'can perform similarly to models trained on combined datasets from all companies,' but Case Study II never trains a centralized model on the union of all clients' data. The full-data baseline is 192 trajectories at V = 1.9 kmol/s, not a model trained on the combined 770 trajectories from all five companies. The 'combined datasets' claim is tested only in Case Study I. Please either evaluate a true centralized baseline on the union of all clients' data in Case Study II or restrict the corresponding claim to Case Study I.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.4] The 'each chemical company individually' part of the central claim is not evaluated for the four source clients. The paper reports performance only for the target company in Case Study II; there is no evidence that the source companies' models improve over their individual 192-trajectory models. Since the abstract claims that FL yields significantly higher accuracy than models trained by each chemical company individually, please report source-client performance or explicitly scope the claim to data-scarce target companies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1.4] The word 'significantly' in the abstract is not supported by statistical significance tests. The authors report standard errors but do not show error bars in Figures 6 and 7, nor do they report confidence intervals or hypothesis tests for the observed differences. Either add significance tests or soften the wording to 'consistently higher' or 'clearly higher'.
  2. [Sec. 4.1.2] The scaffold-split protocol is described only as partitioning by solvent scaffolds followed by a 70/15/15 split of each partition. If the 70/15/15 split is random, the same solvent scaffold may appear in both training and test sets, inflating absolute MSE estimates and the comparison to the centralized baseline. Please clarify whether a scaffold-aware split that keeps test scaffolds unseen was used, and if not, report a scaffold-leakage-free version.
  3. [Figure 9 caption] The caption contains the typo 'squarred' instead of 'squared'.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The notation is slightly confusing: n_k is used both for the number of samples in client k and as the upper limit of the inner summation index i; consider using a different index or explicitly writing |D_k|.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The RIPtoP formula uses the convention that a perfect metric can be 0 or 1 depending on the metric, but the authors do not state the convention for MSE in the text; this is clarified in the case studies, but adding an explicit sentence would help readers applying the metric to other metrics such as RMSE or R^2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the FL experiments are empirical benchmarks with clearly stated baselines, and the self-citations are implementation references rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation: FedAvg is introduced via the standard optimization objective (Eq. 1) and aggregation rule, and the case studies then measure test MSE for local, global, and centralized models. RIPtoP (Eq. 2) is a descriptive normalization of measured errors, so it cannot make a prediction equal to its input by construction. In Case Study I, the even-random split is an iid sanity check and the uneven-scaffold split is a heterogeneity test; both compare the global model against independently trained local baselines, so the 'FL helps' result is a measurement, not a tautology. In Case Study II, the global model is indeed dominated by source-client data because the target contributes only 2 of 770 trajectories under FedAvg's sample-size weighting, but that is a transfer-effect limitation that the paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.2.4 ('the system responses for different vapor flow rates show similar dynamics'); a transfer effect is not a circular definition. The comparisons to centralized training are explicitly framed as the intended benchmark rather than as a fitted prediction, and the paper even cautions that centralization is not practicable and need not be an upper bound. The self-citations to the authors' previous GNN and software work are implementation references, not appeals to a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise that would forbid alternative models. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central empirical claims rest on hand-chosen experimental settings (rounds, epochs, partition fractions, latent dimension) and on the assumption that simulated column setups and public datasets represent industrial data silos. No constants are fitted to produce a stated prediction; the reported numbers are direct measurements of model performance.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of communication rounds R = 30
    Chosen without ablation for both case studies; final MSE and RIPtoP depend on this stopping point.
  • Local epochs per round = 150 (Case Study I)
    Taken from MoLprop defaults; no sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • Data partition fractions = 25/25/25/25 and 40/30/20/10
    Hand-selected to construct iid and non-iid scenarios; results may not generalize to other partitions.
  • Latent space dimension = 2
    Taken from the prior Koopman/Wiener model [204]; not swept in this paper.
  • Vapor flow rates and target value = V in {1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.0} kmol/s for source clients, 1.9 kmol/s for target
    Chosen to create a controlled heterogeneity setting; the central transfer result depends on these similar dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Client data distributions are sufficiently aligned that FedAvg parameter averaging is meaningful.
    Equation (1) explicitly assumes iid client distributions from a global distribution; the paper later relaxes this for non-iid scenarios, but both case studies still rely on shared model architecture and compatible label spaces.
  • domain assumption The five distillation column models in Case Study II share identical structure, states, and input signals, differing only in vapor flow rate V.
    Section 4.2.2 defines the scenario this way, and Section 4.2.4 acknowledges the system responses show similar dynamics. If this holds only in simulation, the FL benefit is not evidence for heterogeneous real processes.
  • domain assumption Simulated data generated from mechanistic models is a valid proxy for proprietary industrial data.
    All experiments use public activity coefficient data or simulated column trajectories; no proprietary industrial data is involved, so practical claims about industrial data scarcity are extrapolated.
  • standard math The GNN model from Rittig et al. [194] and the Koopman/Wiener model from Schulze & Mitsos [204] are correct implementations of their published methods.
    The paper reuses these implementations without re-deriving them; any errors in the base models would propagate into the case-study results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated Learning from Molecules to Processes: A Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/474OPZBM

@misc{pith2026250618525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated Learning from Molecules to Processes: A Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/474OPZBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18525}
}
read the original abstract

We present a perspective on federated learning in chemical engineering that envisions collaborative efforts in machine learning (ML) developments within the chemical industry. Large amounts of chemical and process data are proprietary to chemical companies and are therefore locked in data silos, hindering the training of ML models on large data sets in chemical engineering. Recently, the concept of federated learning has gained increasing attention in ML research, enabling organizations to jointly train machine learning models without disclosure of their individual data. We discuss potential applications of federated learning in several fields of chemical engineering, from the molecular to the process scale. In addition, we apply federated learning in two exemplary case studies that simulate practical scenarios of multiple chemical companies holding proprietary data sets: (i) prediction of binary mixture activity coefficients with graph neural networks and (ii) system identification of a distillation column with autoencoders. Our results indicate that ML models jointly trained with federated learning yield significantly higher accuracy than models trained by each chemical company individually and can perform similarly to models trained on combined datasets from all companies. Federated learning has therefore great potential to advance ML models in chemical engineering while respecting corporate data privacy, making it promising for future industrial applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of four chemical companies working on different regions in the chemical space and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative workflow of federated learning for two companies jointly training a machine learning model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data distributions for two companies at the example of molecular property data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Potential application fields of federated learning in chemical engineering. The colors indicate the current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of process for separating methanol and propanol by means of a distillation column with two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The test mean squared error (MSE) values for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The test mean squared error (MSE) values for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The evolution of the composition in the condenser, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Test mean squarred error (MSE) for two data availability scenarios, full data set with 192 trajectories and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Molecular Machine Learning in Chemical Process Design

    physics.chem-ph 2025-08 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    This paper argues that integrating molecular machine learning into chemical process design could accelerate discovery of novel molecules and processes, but requires better data, benchmarks, and industry collaboration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

211 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Schweidtmann, Erik Esche, Asja Fischer, Marius Kloft, Jens-Uwe Repke, Sebastian Sager, and Alexander Mitsos

    Artur M. Schweidtmann, Erik Esche, Asja Fischer, Marius Kloft, Jens-Uwe Repke, Sebastian Sager, and Alexander Mitsos. Machine learning in chemical engineering: A perspective. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 93(12):2029–2039, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Felix Strieth-Kalthoff, Frederik Sandfort, Marwin H. S. Segler, and Frank Glorius. Machine learning the ropes: principles, applications and directions in synthetic chemistry. Chemical Society reviews, 49(17):6154–6168, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Lee, Srinivas Rangarajan, Leo Chiang, Bhushan Gopaluni, Artur M

    Prodromos Daoutidis, Jay H. Lee, Srinivas Rangarajan, Leo Chiang, Bhushan Gopaluni, Artur M. Schwei- dtmann, Iiro Harjunkoski, Mehmet Mercangöz, Ali Mesbah, Fani Boukouvala, Fernando V . Lima, Antonio Del Rio Chanona, and Christos Georgakis. Machine learning in process systems engineering: Challenges and opportunities. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 18...

    2024

  4. [4]

    How to do impactful research in artificial intelligence for chemistry and materials science

    Austin Cheng, Marta Skreta, Cher Tian Ser, Andres Guzman-Cordero, Luca Thiede, Andreas Burger, Sergio Pablo-García, Abdulrahman Aldossary, Shi Xuan Leong, Felix Strieth-Kalthoff, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik. How to do impactful research in artificial intelligence for chemistry and materials science. Faraday Discussions, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically

    Joel Hestness, Sharan Narang, Newsha Ardalani, Gregory Diamos, Heewoo Jun, Hassan Kianinejad, Md Mostofa Ali Patwary, Yang Yang, and Yanqi Zhou. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Training compute-optimal large language models

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Scaling vision transformers

    Xiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, and Lucas Beyer. Scaling vision transformers. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12104–12113, 2022

    2022

Show all 211 references
  1. [9]

    Advances and opportunities in machine learning for process data analytics

    S Joe Qin and Leo H Chiang. Advances and opportunities in machine learning for process data analytics. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 126:465–473, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Maximizing informa- tion from chemical engineering data sets: Applications to machine learning

    Alexander Thebelt, Johannes Wiebe, Jan Kronqvist, Calvin Tsay, and Ruth Misener. Maximizing informa- tion from chemical engineering data sets: Applications to machine learning. Chemical Engineering Science, 252:117469, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Wei Zhu, Jiebo Luo, and Andrew D. White. Federated learning of molecular properties with graph neural networks in a heterogeneous setting. Patterns, 3(6):100521, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Federated learning in chemical engineering: A tutorial on a framework for privacy-preserving collaboration across distributed data sources

    Siddhant Dutta, Iago Leal de Freitas, Pedro Maciel Xavier, Claudio Miceli de Farias, and David E Bernal Neira. Federated learning in chemical engineering: A tutorial on a framework for privacy-preserving collaboration across distributed data sources. Industrial & Engineering C...

    2024

  5. [13]

    The sampl2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview

    Matthew T Geballe, A Geoffrey Skillman, Anthony Nicholls, J Peter Guthrie, and Peter J Taylor. The sampl2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 24:259–279, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Freesolv: a database of experimental and calculated hydration free energies, with input files

    David L Mobley and J Peter Guthrie. Freesolv: a database of experimental and calculated hydration free energies, with input files. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 28:711–720, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O

    Raghunathan Ramakrishnan, Pavlo O. Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O. Anatole von Lilienfeld. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules. Scientific Data, 1(1):140022, Aug 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Summit: benchmarking machine learning methods for reaction optimisation

    Kobi C Felton, Jan G Rittig, and Alexei A Lapkin. Summit: benchmarking machine learning methods for reaction optimisation. Chemistry-Methods, 1(2):116–122, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Orderly: data sets and benchmarks for chemical reaction data

    Daniel S Wigh, Joe Arrowsmith, Alexander Pomberger, Kobi C Felton, and Alexei A Lapkin. Orderly: data sets and benchmarks for chemical reaction data. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(9):3790–3798, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial systems

    Leo H Chiang, Evan L Russell, and Richard D Braatz. Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial systems . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Perspectives on the integration between first-principles and data-driven modeling

    William Bradley, Jinhyeun Kim, Zachary Kilwein, Logan Blakely, Michael Eydenberg, Jordan Jalvin, Carl Laird, and Fani Boukouvala. Perspectives on the integration between first-principles and data-driven modeling. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 166:107898, 2022. 16 RITTIG & ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    A review and perspective on hybrid modeling methodologies

    Artur M Schweidtmann, Dongda Zhang, and Moritz von Stosch. A review and perspective on hybrid modeling methodologies. Digital Chemical Engineering, 10:100136, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Physics- informed machine learning

    George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics- informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Autonomous chemical research with large language models

    Daniil A Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. Autonomous chemical research with large language models. Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D White, and Philippe Schwaller

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D White, and Philippe Schwaller. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5):525–535, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments

    Florence H Vermeire and William H Green. Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments. Chemical Engineering Journal, 418:129307, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Fault detection and diagnosis based on transfer learning for multimode chemical processes

    Hao Wu and Jinsong Zhao. Fault detection and diagnosis based on transfer learning for multimode chemical processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 135:106731, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Transfer learning for process fault diagnosis: Knowledge transfer from simulation to physical processes

    Weijun Li, Sai Gu, Xiangping Zhang, and Tao Chen. Transfer learning for process fault diagnosis: Knowledge transfer from simulation to physical processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 139:106904, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Multi-fidelity data-driven design and analysis of reactor and tube simulations

    Tom Savage, Nausheen Basha, Jonathan McDonough, Omar K Matar, and Ehecatl Antonio del Rio Chanona. Multi-fidelity data-driven design and analysis of reactor and tube simulations. Computers & Chemical Engineer- ing, 179:108410, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Multi-fidelity graph neural networks for predicting toluene/water partition coefficients

    Thomas Nevolianis, Jan Gerald Rittig, Alexander Mitsos, and Kai Leonhard. Multi-fidelity graph neural networks for predicting toluene/water partition coefficients. ChemRxiv preprint 10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-3t818, 2024

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Agüera y Arcas

    H. Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Agüera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1273–1282, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurelien Bellet, and Sen Zhao

    Peter Kairouz, H. Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurelien Bellet, and Sen Zhao. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and trends® in machine learning 14.1–2 (2021): 1-210., 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Brendan McMahan, Daniel Ramage, and Zheng Xu

    Katharine Daly, Hubert Eichner, Peter Kairouz, H. Brendan McMahan, Daniel Ramage, and Zheng Xu. Federated learning in practice: Reflections and projections. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2410.08892v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Recent advances on federated learning: A systematic survey

    Bingyan Liu, Nuoyan Lv, Yuanchun Guo, and Yawen Li. Recent advances on federated learning: A systematic survey. Neurocomputing, 597:128019, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications

    Jie Wen, Zhixia Zhang, Yang Lan, Zhihua Cui, Jianghui Cai, and Wensheng Zhang. A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 14(2):513– 535, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    H Ngai, and Thiemo V oigt

    Shenghui Li, Fanghua Ye, Meng Fang, Jiaxu Zhao, Yun-Hin Chan, Edith C. H Ngai, and Thiemo V oigt. Synergizing foundation models and federated learning: A survey. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2406.12844v1, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    The future of digital health with federated learning

    Nicola Rieke, Jonny Hancox, Wenqi Li, Fausto Milletari, Holger R Roth, Shadi Albarqouni, Spyridon Bakas, Mathieu N Galtier, Bennett A Landman, Klaus Maier-Hein, et al. The future of digital health with federated learning. NPJ digital medicine, 3(1):119, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Nguyen, Quoc-Viet Pham, Pubudu N

    Dinh C. Nguyen, Quoc-Viet Pham, Pubudu N. Pathirana, Ming Ding, Aruna Seneviratne, Zihuai Lin, Octavia Dobre, and Won-Joo Hwang. Federated learning for smart healthcare: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(3):1–37, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Rawat, and Vladimir Vlassov

    Ashish Rauniyar, Desta Haileselassie Hagos, Debesh Jha, Jan Erik Håkegård, Ulas Bagci, Danda B. Rawat, and Vladimir Vlassov. Federated learning for medical applications: A taxonomy, current trends, challenges, and future research directions. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Göller, Yves Moreau, Mathieu N

    Wouter Heyndrickx, Lewis Mervin, Tobias Morawietz, Noé Sturm, Lukas Friedrich, Adam Zalewski, Anastasia Pentina, Lina Humbeck, Martijn Oldenhof, Ritsuya Niwayama, Peter Schmidtke, Nikolas Fechner, Jaak Simm, Adam Arany, Nicolas Drizard, Rama Jabal, Arina Afanasyeva, Regis Loeb...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Applied federated learning: Improving google keyboard query suggestions

    Timothy Yang, Galen Andrew, Hubert Eichner, Haicheng Sun, Wei Li, Nicholas Kong, Daniel Ramage, and Françoise Beaufays. Applied federated learning: Improving google keyboard query suggestions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.02903, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shen, Preslav Aleksandrov, Xinchi Qiu, and Nicholas D

    Lorenzo Sani, Alex Iacob, Zeyu Cao, Bill Marino, Yan Gao, Tomas Paulik, Wanru Zhao, William F. Shen, Preslav Aleksandrov, Xinchi Qiu, and Nicholas D. Lane. The future of large language model pre-training is federated. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2405.10853v3, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images

    Ming Y Lu, Richard J Chen, Dehan Kong, Jana Lipkova, Rajendra Singh, Drew FK Williamson, Tiffany Y Chen, and Faisal Mahmood. Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images. Medical image analysis, 76:102298, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey

    Hao Guan, Pew-Thian Yap, Andrea Bozoki, and Mingxia Liu. Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey. Pattern Recognition, page 110424, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Conformal efficiency as a metric for comparative model assessment befitting federated learning

    Wouter Heyndrickx, Adam Arany, Jaak Simm, Anastasia Pentina, Noé Sturm, Lina Humbeck, Lewis Mervin, Adam Zalewski, Martijn Oldenhof, Peter Schmidtke, Lukas Friedrich, Regis Loeb, Arina Afanasyeva, Ansgar Schuffenhauer, Yves Moreau, and Hugo Ceulemans. Conformal efficiency as a...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Industry-scale orchestrated federated learning for drug discovery

    Martijn Oldenhof, Gergely Ács, Balázs Pejó, Ansgar Schuffenhauer, Nicholas Holway, Noé Sturm, Arne Dieck- mann, Oliver Fortmeier, Eric Boniface, Clément Mayer, Arnaud Gohier, Peter Schmidtke, Ritsuya Niwayama, Dieter Kopecky, Lewis Mervin, Prakash Chandra Rathi, Lukas Friedric...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Communication-efficient federated learning via knowledge distillation

    Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Lingjuan Lyu, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. Communication-efficient federated learning via knowledge distillation. Nature communications, 13(1):2032, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Anger, Chris Barber, Richard J

    Thierry Hanser, Ernst Ahlberg, Alexander Amberg, Lennart T. Anger, Chris Barber, Richard J. Brennan, Alessandro Brigo, Annie Delaunois, Susanne Glowienke, Nigel Greene, Laura Johnston, Daniel Kuhn, Lara Kuhnke, Jean-François Marchaland, Wolfgang Muster, Jeffrey Plante, Friedri...

    2025

  39. [47]

    Decentralized and incentivized federated learning for the chemical engineering domain

    Mathis Hayer. Decentralized and incentivized federated learning for the chemical engineering domain. Master’s thesis, Tsinghua University, 2021. This thesis is not available online

    2021

  40. [48]

    Privacy-preserving federated machine learning modeling and predictive control of heterogeneous nonlinear systems

    Zeyuan Xu and Zhe Wu. Privacy-preserving federated machine learning modeling and predictive control of heterogeneous nonlinear systems. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 187:108749, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    A review of federated learning in energy systems

    Xu Cheng, Chendan Li, and Xiufeng Liu. A review of federated learning in energy systems. In 2022 IEEE/IAS Industrial and Commercial Power System Asia (I&CPS Asia). IEEE, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    A review of federated learning in renewable energy applica- tions: Potential, challenges, and future directions

    Albin Grataloup, Stefan Jonas, and Angela Meyer. A review of federated learning in renewable energy applica- tions: Potential, challenges, and future directions. Energy and AI, page 100375, 2024

    2024

  43. [52]

    Tailin Zhou, Zehong Lin, Jun Zhang, and Danny H.K. Tsang. Understanding and improving model averaging in federated learning on heterogeneous data. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, pages 1–16, 2024

    2024

  44. [53]

    Review of mathematical optimization in federated learning

    Shusen Yang, Fangyuan Zhao, Zihao Zhou, Liang Shi, Xuebin Ren, and Zongben Xu. Review of mathematical optimization in federated learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2412.01630v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Talwalkar

    Virginia Smith, Chao-Kai Chiang, Maziar Sanjabi, and Ameet S. Talwalkar. Federated multi-task learning. In I. Guyon, U. V on Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran...

    2017

  46. [55]

    Model aggregation techniques in federated learning: A comprehensive survey

    Pian Qi, Diletta Chiaro, Antonella Guzzo, Michele Ianni, Giancarlo Fortino, and Francesco Piccialli. Model aggregation techniques in federated learning: A comprehensive survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 150:272–293, 2024. 18 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2024

  47. [56]

    Dinh, Tung T

    Canh T. Dinh, Tung T. Vu, and Nguyen H. Tran. Chapter 7 - personalized federated learning: theory and open problems. In Lam M. Nguyen, editor, Federated Learning, pages 125–141. Elsevier Science & Technology, San Diego, 2024

    2024

  48. [57]

    A survey of what to share in federated learning: Perspectives on model utility, privacy leakage, and communication efficiency

    Jiawei Shao, Zijian Li, Wenqiang Sun, Tailin Zhou, Yuchang Sun, Lumin Liu, Zehong Lin, Yuyi Mao, and Jun Zhang. A survey of what to share in federated learning: Perspectives on model utility, privacy leakage, and communication efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10655, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    On the unreasonable effectiveness of federated averaging with heterogeneous data

    Jianyu Wang, Rudrajit Das, Gauri Joshi, Satyen Kale, Zheng Xu, and Tong Zhang. On the unreasonable effectiveness of federated averaging with heterogeneous data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04723, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Rittig and Alexander Mitsos

    Jan G. Rittig and Alexander Mitsos. Thermodynamics-consistent graph neural networks. Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2407.18372, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Digitization of chemical process flow diagrams using deep convolutional neural networks

    Maximilian F Theisen, Kenji Nishizaki Flores, Lukas Schulze Balhorn, and Artur M Schweidtmann. Digitization of chemical process flow diagrams using deep convolutional neural networks. Digital chemical engineering, 6:100072, 2023

    2023

  52. [61]

    Flowsheet generation through hierarchi- cal reinforcement learning and graph neural networks

    Laura Stops, Roel Leenhouts, Qinghe Gao, and Artur M Schweidtmann. Flowsheet generation through hierarchi- cal reinforcement learning and graph neural networks. AIChE Journal, 69(1):e17938, 2023

    2023

  53. [62]

    Ali Ekramipooya, Mehrdad Boroushaki, and Davood Rashtchian. Predicting possible recommendations related to causes and consequences in the hazop study worksheet using natural language processing and machine learning: Bert, clustering, and classification. Journal of Loss Prevent...

    2024

  54. [63]

    A digitization and conversion tool for imaged drawings to intelligent piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID)

    Sung-O Kang, Eul-Bum Lee, and Hum-Kyung Baek. A digitization and conversion tool for imaged drawings to intelligent piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID). Energies, 12(13):2593, 2019

    2019

  55. [64]

    Transforming engineering diagrams: A novel approach for P&ID digitization using transformers

    Jan Marius Stürmer, Marius Graumann, and Tobias Koch. Transforming engineering diagrams: A novel approach for P&ID digitization using transformers. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2411.13929v1, 2024

    2024

  56. [65]

    Schweidtmann

    Lukas Schulze Balhorn, Qinghe Gao, Dominik Goldstein, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Flowsheet recognition using deep convolutional neural networks. In Yoshiyuki Yamashita and Manabu Kano, editors,14th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering , volume 49 of Computer-...

    2022

  57. [66]

    Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility analysis, and optimization: A review

    Atharv Bhosekar and Marianthi Ierapetritou. Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility analysis, and optimization: A review. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 108:250–267, 2018

    2018

  58. [67]

    Deterministic global optimization with artificial neural networks embedded

    Artur M Schweidtmann and Alexander Mitsos. Deterministic global optimization with artificial neural networks embedded. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 180(3):925–948, 2019

    2019

  59. [68]

    Overview of surrogate modeling in chemical process engineering

    Kevin McBride and Kai Sundmacher. Overview of surrogate modeling in chemical process engineering. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 91(3):228–239, 2019

    2019

  60. [69]

    Architectures for neural networks as surrogates for dynamic systems in chemical engineering

    Erik Esche, Joris Weigert, Gerardo Brand Rihm, Jan Göbel, and Jens-Uwe Repke. Architectures for neural networks as surrogates for dynamic systems in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 177:184–199, 2022

    2022

  61. [70]

    Formulating data-driven surrogate models for process optimization.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 179:108411, 2023

    Ruth Misener and Lorenz Biegler. Formulating data-driven surrogate models for process optimization.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 179:108411, 2023

    2023

  62. [71]

    Recent trends on hybrid modeling for industry 4.0

    Joel Sansana, Mark N Joswiak, Ivan Castillo, Zhenyu Wang, Ricardo Rendall, Leo H Chiang, and Marco S Reis. Recent trends on hybrid modeling for industry 4.0. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 151:107365, 2021

    2021

  63. [72]

    Machine learning for chemical reactions

    Markus Meuwly. Machine learning for chemical reactions. Chemical Reviews, 121(16):10218–10239, 2021

    2021

  64. [73]

    Exploring catalytic reaction networks with machine learning

    Johannes T Margraf, Hyunwook Jung, Christoph Scheurer, and Karsten Reuter. Exploring catalytic reaction networks with machine learning. Nature Catalysis, 6(2):112–121, 2023

    2023

  65. [74]

    Chemical data intelligence for sustainable chemistry

    Jana M Weber, Zhen Guo, Chonghuan Zhang, Artur M Schweidtmann, and Alexei A Lapkin. Chemical data intelligence for sustainable chemistry. Chemical Society Reviews, 50(21):12013–12036, 2021

    2021

  66. [75]

    Machine learning meets mechanistic modelling for accurate prediction of experimental activation energies

    Kjell Jorner, Tore Brinck, Per-Ola Norrby, and David Buttar. Machine learning meets mechanistic modelling for accurate prediction of experimental activation energies. Chemical Science, 12(3):1163–1175, 2021

    2021

  67. [76]

    Machine learning from quantum chemistry to predict experimental solvent effects on reaction rates

    Yunsie Chung and William H Green. Machine learning from quantum chemistry to predict experimental solvent effects on reaction rates. Chemical Science, 15(7):2410–2424, 2024

    2024

  68. [77]

    An artificial neural network approach to recognise kinetic models from experimental data

    Marco Quaglio, Louise Roberts, Mohd Safarizal Bin Jaapar, Eric S Fraga, Vivek Dua, and Federico Galvanin. An artificial neural network approach to recognise kinetic models from experimental data. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 135:106759, 2020. 19 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2020

  69. [78]

    Generative artificial intelligence in chemical engineering

    Artur M Schweidtmann. Generative artificial intelligence in chemical engineering. Nature Chemical Engineering, 1(3):193–193, 2024

    2024

  70. [79]

    Automated synthesis of steady-state continuous processes using reinforcement learning

    Quirin Göttl, Dominik G Grimm, and Jakob Burger. Automated synthesis of steady-state continuous processes using reinforcement learning. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, pages 1–15, 2022

    2022

  71. [80]

    Schweidtmann

    Gabriel V ogel, Lukas Schulze Balhorn, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Learning from flowsheets: A generative transformer model for autocompletion of flowsheets. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 171:108162, 2023

    2023

  72. [81]

    esfiles: Intelligent process flowsheet synthesis using process knowledge, symbolic ai, and machine learning

    Vipul Mann, Mauricio Sales-Cruz, Rafiqul Gani, and Venkat Venkatasubramanian. esfiles: Intelligent process flowsheet synthesis using process knowledge, symbolic ai, and machine learning. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 181:108505, 2024

    2024

  73. [82]

    Schweidtmann

    Lukas Schulze Balhorn, Marc Caballero, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Toward autocorrection of chemical process flowsheets using large language models. In Flavio Manenti and Gintaras V . Reklaitis, editors,Computer Aided Chemical Engineering : 34 European Symposium on Computer Aid...

    2024

  74. [83]

    Graph-to-sfiles: Control structure prediction from process topologies using generative artificial intelligence

    Lukas Schulze Balhorn, Kevin Degens, and Artur M Schweidtmann. Graph-to-sfiles: Control structure prediction from process topologies using generative artificial intelligence. Computers & Chemical Engineering , page 109121, 2025

    2025

  75. [84]

    Deep reinforcement learning for process design: Review and perspective

    Qinghe Gao and Artur M Schweidtmann. Deep reinforcement learning for process design: Review and perspective. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 44:101012, 2024

    2024

  76. [85]

    Deep reinforcement learning enables conceptual design of processes for separating azeotropic mixtures without prior knowledge

    Quirin Göttl, Jonathan Pirnay, Jakob Burger, and Dominik G Grimm. Deep reinforcement learning enables conceptual design of processes for separating azeotropic mixtures without prior knowledge. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 194:108975, 2025

    2025

  77. [86]

    Data-driven control: Overview and perspectives

    Wentao Tang and Prodromos Daoutidis. Data-driven control: Overview and perspectives. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 1048–1064. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  78. [87]

    System identification: A machine learning perspective

    Alessandro Chiuso and Gianluigi Pillonetto. System identification: A machine learning perspective. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 2(1):281–304, 2019

    2019

  79. [88]

    Comparative study of machine learning and system identification for process systems engineering dynamics.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2025

    Akhil Ahmed, Ehecatl Antonio del Rio-Chanona, and Mehmet Mercangöz. Comparative study of machine learning and system identification for process systems engineering dynamics.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2025

    2025

  80. [89]

    Process control via artificial neural networks and reinforcement learning

    Josiah C Hoskins and David M Himmelblau. Process control via artificial neural networks and reinforcement learning. Computers & chemical engineering, 16(4):241–251, 1992

    1992

  81. [90]

    Reinforcement learning–overview of recent progress and implications for process control

    Thomas A Badgwell, Jay H Lee, and Kuang-Hung Liu. Reinforcement learning–overview of recent progress and implications for process control. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 44:71–85, 2018

    2018

  82. [91]

    A review on reinforcement learning: Introduction and applications in industrial process control

    Rui Nian, Jinfeng Liu, and Biao Huang. A review on reinforcement learning: Introduction and applications in industrial process control. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 139:106886, 2020

    2020

  83. [92]

    Recent advances in reinforcement learning for chemical process control

    Venkata Srikar Devarakonda, Wei Sun, Xun Tang, and Yuhe Tian. Recent advances in reinforcement learning for chemical process control. Processes, 13(6), 2025

    2025

  84. [93]

    Modeling and predictive control of nonlinear processes using transfer learning method

    Ming Xiao, Cheng Hu, and Zhe Wu. Modeling and predictive control of nonlinear processes using transfer learning method. AIChE Journal, 69(7):e18076, 2023

    2023

  85. [94]

    Hedengren

    Samuel Arce Munoz, Jonathan Pershing, and John D. Hedengren. Physics-informed transfer learning for process control applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2024

    2024

  86. [95]

    Optimization-based multi-source transfer learning for modeling of nonlinear processes

    Ming Xiao, Keerthana Vellayappan, Pravin P S, Krishna Gudena, and Zhe Wu. Optimization-based multi-source transfer learning for modeling of nonlinear processes. Chemical Engineering Science, 295:120117, 2024

    2024

  87. [96]

    Control strategies for microgrids with distributed energy storage systems: An overview

    Thomas Morstyn, Branislav Hredzak, and Vassilios G Agelidis. Control strategies for microgrids with distributed energy storage systems: An overview. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(4):3652–3666, 2016

    2016

  88. [97]

    Cooperative optimal power flow with flexible chemical process loads

    Joannah I Otashu, Kyeongjun Seo, and Michael Baldea. Cooperative optimal power flow with flexible chemical process loads. AIChE Journal, 67(4):e17159, 2021

    2021

  89. [98]

    Toward distributed energy services: Decentralizing optimal power flow with machine learning.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 11(2):1296–1306, 2019

    Roel Dobbe, Oscar Sondermeijer, David Fridovich-Keil, Daniel Arnold, Duncan Callaway, and Claire Tomlin. Toward distributed energy services: Decentralizing optimal power flow with machine learning.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 11(2):1296–1306, 2019

    2019

  90. [99]

    Federated reinforcement learning for energy management of multiple smart homes with distributed energy resources

    Sangyoon Lee and Dae-Hyun Choi. Federated reinforcement learning for energy management of multiple smart homes with distributed energy resources. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(1):488–497, 2020. 20 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2020

  91. [100]

    Federated multiagent deep reinforcement learning approach via physics-informed reward for multimicrogrid energy management

    Yuanzheng Li, Shangyang He, Yang Li, Yang Shi, and Zhigang Zeng. Federated multiagent deep reinforcement learning approach via physics-informed reward for multimicrogrid energy management. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2023

    2023

  92. [101]

    Survey on ai and machine learning techniques for microgrid energy management systems

    Aditya Joshi, Skieler Capezza, Ahmad Alhaji, and Mo-Yuen Chow. Survey on ai and machine learning techniques for microgrid energy management systems. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(7):1513–1529, 2023

    2023

  93. [102]

    Distributed fairness-guided optimization for coordinated demand response in multi-stakeholder process networks

    Andrew Allman and Qi Zhang. Distributed fairness-guided optimization for coordinated demand response in multi-stakeholder process networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 161:107777, 2022

    2022

  94. [103]

    Breaking data silos in drug discovery with federated learning

    Can Li. Breaking data silos in drug discovery with federated learning. Nature Chemical Engineering, 2(5):288– 289, 2025

    2025

  95. [104]

    Deep learning for anomaly detection in time-series data: Review, analysis, and guidelines

    Kukjin Choi, Jihun Yi, Changhwa Park, and Sungroh Yoon. Deep learning for anomaly detection in time-series data: Review, analysis, and guidelines. IEEE access, 9:120043–120065, 2021

    2021

  96. [105]

    Deep anomaly detection on tennessee eastman process data

    Fabian Hartung, Billy Joe Franks, Tobias Michels, Dennis Wagner, Philipp Liznerski, Steffen Reithermann, Sophie Fellenz, Fabian Jirasek, Maja Rudolph, Daniel Neider, Heike Leitte, Chen Song, Benjamin Kloepper, Stephan Mandt, Michael Bortz, Jakob Burger, Hans Hasse, and Marius ...

    2023

  97. [106]

    An analysis of process fault diagnosis methods from safety perspectives

    Rajeevan Arunthavanathan, Faisal Khan, Salim Ahmed, and Syed Imtiaz. An analysis of process fault diagnosis methods from safety perspectives. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 145:107197, 2021

    2021

  98. [107]

    J. J. Downs and E. F. V ogel. A plant-wide industrial process control problem.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 17(3):245–255, 1993

    1993

  99. [108]

    Generative adversarial network based anomaly detection on the benchmark tennessee eastman process

    Xin Yang and Dajun Feng. Generative adversarial network based anomaly detection on the benchmark tennessee eastman process. In 2019 5th International conference on control, automation and robotics (ICCAR), pages 644–648. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  100. [109]

    Fault detection in tennessee eastman process with temporal deep learning models

    Ildar Lomov, Mark Lyubimov, Ilya Makarov, and Leonid E Zhukov. Fault detection in tennessee eastman process with temporal deep learning models. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23:100216, 2021

    2021

  101. [110]

    Topology-guided graph learning for process fault diagnosis

    Mingwei Jia, Junhao Hu, Yi Liu, Zengliang Gao, and Yuan Yao. Topology-guided graph learning for process fault diagnosis. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 62(7):3238–3248, 2023

    2023

  102. [111]

    Deep anomaly detection with extended transformer-based model on tennessee eastman process dataset

    Fabian Schoch, Pascal Graf, Tobias Schmieg, Carsten Wittenberg, Carsten Lanquillon, and Nicolaj C Stache. Deep anomaly detection with extended transformer-based model on tennessee eastman process dataset. In 2024 IEEE 19th International Conference on Computer Science and Infor...

    2024

  103. [112]

    Schatte, Benjamin F

    Peng Yan, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Paul-Philipp Luley, Matthias Rosenthal, Gerrit A. Schatte, Benjamin F. Grewe, and Thilo Stadelmann. A comprehensive survey of deep transfer learning for anomaly detection in industrial time series: Methods, applications, and directions. IEEE Access,...

    2024

  104. [113]

    Knowledge acquisition from chemical accident databases using an ontology-based method and natural language processing

    Johannes I Single, Jürgen Schmidt, and Jens Denecke. Knowledge acquisition from chemical accident databases using an ontology-based method and natural language processing. Safety Science, 129:104747, 2020

    2020

  105. [114]

    Application of natural language processing in hazop reports

    Xiayuan Feng, Yiyang Dai, Xu Ji, Li Zhou, and Yagu Dang. Application of natural language processing in hazop reports. Process safety and environmental protection, 155:41–48, 2021

    2021

  106. [115]

    Critical review on data-driven approaches for learning from accidents: Comparative analysis and future research

    Yi Niu, Yunxiao Fan, and Xing Ju. Critical review on data-driven approaches for learning from accidents: Comparative analysis and future research. Safety Science, 171:106381, 2024

    2024

  107. [116]

    Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy

    Tadas Baltrušaitis, Chaitanya Ahuja, and Louis-Philippe Morency. Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 41(2):423–443, 2018

    2018

  108. [117]

    Foundations & trends in multimodal machine learning: Principles, challenges, and open questions

    Paul Pu Liang, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. Foundations & trends in multimodal machine learning: Principles, challenges, and open questions. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(10):1–42, 2024

    2024

  109. [118]

    Next-gpt: Any-to-any multimodal llm

    Shengqiong Wu, Hao Fei, Leigang Qu, Wei Ji, and Tat-Seng Chua. Next-gpt: Any-to-any multimodal llm. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  110. [119]

    Power systems of the future

    Ernst Scholtz, Alexandre Oudalov, and Iiro Harjunkoski. Power systems of the future. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 180:108460, 2024

    2024

  111. [120]

    Xiangyu Zhang, Andrew Glaws, Alexandre Cortiella, Patrick Emami, and Ryan N. King. Deep generative models in energy system applications: Review, challenges, and future directions. Applied Energy, 380:125059, 2025

    2025

  112. [121]

    110th anniversary: Using data to bridge the time and length scales of process systems

    Calvin Tsay and Michael Baldea. 110th anniversary: Using data to bridge the time and length scales of process systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 58(36):16696–16708, 2019. 21 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2019

  113. [122]

    Coley, Regina Barzilay, William H

    Connor W. Coley, Regina Barzilay, William H. Green, Tommi S. Jaakkola, and Klavs F. Jensen. Convolutional embedding of attributed molecular graphs for physical property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 57(8):1757–1772, 2017

    2017

  114. [123]

    Rittig, Qinghe Gao, Manuel Dahmen, Alexander Mitsos, and Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Qinghe Gao, Manuel Dahmen, Alexander Mitsos, and Artur M. Schweidtmann. Graph neural networks for the prediction of molecular structure–property relationships. Machine Learning and Hybrid Modelling for Reaction Engineering, Royal Society of Chemistry, pages 159–...

    2022

  115. [124]

    Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry

    Patrick Reiser, Marlen Neubert, André Eberhard, Luca Torresi, Chen Zhou, Chen Shao, Houssam Metni, Clint van Hoesel, Henrik Schopmans, Timo Sommer, and Pascal Friederich. Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry. Communications Materials, 3(1):93, 2022

    2022

  116. [125]

    Ml-saft: a machine learning framework for pcp-saft parameter prediction

    Kobi C Felton, Lukas Raßpe-Lange, Jan G Rittig, Kai Leonhard, Alexander Mitsos, Julian Meyer-Kirschner, Carsten Knösche, and Alexei A Lapkin. Ml-saft: a machine learning framework for pcp-saft parameter prediction. Chemical Engineering Journal, page 151999, 2024

    2024

  117. [126]

    Greenman, Yunsie Chung, Shih-Cheng Li, David E

    Esther Heid, Kevin P. Greenman, Yunsie Chung, Shih-Cheng Li, David E. Graff, Florence H. Vermeire, Haoyang Wu, William H. Green, and Charles J. McGill. Chemprop: A machine learning package for chemical property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(1):9–17, 2024

    2024

  118. [127]

    Chemberta: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction

    Seyone Chithrananda, Gabriel Grand, and Bharath Ramsundar. Chemberta: large-scale self-supervised pretraining for molecular property prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09885, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  119. [128]

    Generalizing property prediction of ionic liquids from limited labeled data: a one-stop framework empowered by transfer learning

    Guzhong Chen, Zhen Song, Zhiwen Qi, and Kai Sundmacher. Generalizing property prediction of ionic liquids from limited labeled data: a one-stop framework empowered by transfer learning. Digital Discovery, 2(3):591–601, 2023

    2023

  120. [129]

    Understanding the language of molecules: Predicting pure component parameters for the pc-saft equation of state from smiles

    Benedikt Winter, Philipp Rehner, Timm Esper, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. Understanding the language of molecules: Predicting pure component parameters for the pc-saft equation of state from smiles. Digital Discovery, 2025

    2025

  121. [130]

    Fl-QSAR: a federated learning-based QSAR prototype for collaborative drug discovery

    Shaoqi Chen, Dongyu Xue, Guohui Chuai, Qiang Yang, and Qi Liu. Fl-QSAR: a federated learning-based QSAR prototype for collaborative drug discovery. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 36(22-23):5492–5498, 2021

    2021

  122. [131]

    Collaborative analysis for drug discovery by federated learning on non-iid data

    Dong Huang, Xiucai Ye, Ying Zhang, and Tetsuya Sakurai. Collaborative analysis for drug discovery by federated learning on non-iid data. Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 219:1–7, 2023

    2023

  123. [132]

    Graphganfed: A federated generative framework for graph-structured molecules towards efficient drug discovery

    Daniel Manu, Jingjing Yao, Wuji Liu, and Xiang Sun. Graphganfed: A federated generative framework for graph-structured molecules towards efficient drug discovery. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 21(2):240–253, 2024

    2024

  124. [133]

    Molcfl: A personalized and privacy-preserving drug discovery framework based on generative clustered federated learning

    Yan Guo, Yongqiang Gao, and Jiawei Song. Molcfl: A personalized and privacy-preserving drug discovery framework based on generative clustered federated learning. Journal of biomedical informatics, 157:104712, 2024

    2024

  125. [134]

    Federated heterogeneous contrastive distillation for molecular representation learning

    Jinjia Feng, Zhen Wang, Zhewei Wei, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Hongteng Xu. Federated heterogeneous contrastive distillation for molecular representation learning. In Serra, Spezzano (Ed.) 2024 – Proceedings of the 33rd ACM, pages 1038–1048

    2024

  126. [135]

    Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules

    Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, Jennifer N Wei, David Duvenaud, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Benjamín Sánchez- Lengeling, Dennis Sheberla, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Timothy D Hirzel, Ryan P Adams, and Alán Aspuru- Guzik. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous re...

    2018

  127. [136]

    Generative models for molecular discovery: Recent advances and challenges

    Camille Bilodeau, Wengong Jin, Tommi Jaakkola, Regina Barzilay, and Klavs F Jensen. Generative models for molecular discovery: Recent advances and challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(5):e1608, 2022

    2022

  128. [137]

    Generative ai and process systems engineering: The next frontier

    Benjamin Decardi-Nelson, Abdulelah S Alshehri, Akshay Ajagekar, and Fengqi You. Generative ai and process systems engineering: The next frontier. Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 108723, 2024

    2024

  129. [138]

    A deep learning-based framework towards inverse green solvent design for extractive distillation with multi-index constraints

    Jun Zhang, Qin Wang, Mario Eden, and Weifeng Shen. A deep learning-based framework towards inverse green solvent design for extractive distillation with multi-index constraints. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 177:108335, 2023

    2023

  130. [139]

    Graphxform: graph transformer for computer-aided molecular design

    Jonathan Pirnay, Jan G Rittig, Alexander B Wolf, Martin Grohe, Jakob Burger, Alexander Mitsos, and Dominik G Grimm. Graphxform: graph transformer for computer-aided molecular design. Digital Discovery, 4(4):1052– 1065, 2025

    2025

  131. [140]

    Rittig, Martin Ritzert, Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Martin Ritzert, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Stefanie Winkler, Jana M. Weber, Philipp Morsch, Karl Alexander Heufer, Martin Grohe, Alexander Mitsos, and Manuel Dahmen. Graph machine learning for design of high–octane fuels. AIChE Journal, 69(4):e17971, 2023. 22 RITTIG...

    2023

  132. [141]

    Navigating through the maze of homoge- neous catalyst design with machine learning

    Gabriel dos Passos Gomes, Robert Pollice, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Navigating through the maze of homoge- neous catalyst design with machine learning. Trends in Chemistry, 3(2):96–110, 2021

    2021

  133. [142]

    Heterogeneous catalyst design by generative adversarial network and first-principles based microkinetics

    Atsushi Ishikawa. Heterogeneous catalyst design by generative adversarial network and first-principles based microkinetics. Scientific Reports, 12(1):11657, 2022

    2022

  134. [143]

    Designing catalysts with deep generative models and computational data

    Oliver Schilter, Alain Vaucher, Philippe Schwaller, and Teodoro Laino. Designing catalysts with deep generative models and computational data. a case study for suzuki cross coupling reactions.Digital discovery, 2(3):728–735, 2023

    2023

  135. [144]

    Graph neural networks for the prediction of infinite dilution activity coefficients

    Edgar Ivan Sanchez Medina, Steffen Linke, Martin Stoll, and Kai Sundmacher. Graph neural networks for the prediction of infinite dilution activity coefficients. Digital Discovery, 1(3):216–225, 2022

    2022

  136. [145]

    Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Manuel Dahmen, and Alexander Mitsos. Graph neural networks for temperature-dependent activity coefficient prediction of solutes in ionic liquids. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 171:108153, 2023

    2023

  137. [146]

    Vermeire and William H

    Florence H. Vermeire and William H. Green. Transfer learning for solvation free energies: From quantum chemistry to experiments. Chemical Engineering Journal, 418:129307, August 2021

    2021

  138. [147]

    van Lehn, and Victor M

    Shiyi Qin, Shengli Jiang, Jianping Li, Prasanna Balaprakash, Reid C. van Lehn, and Victor M. Zavala. Capturing molecular interactions in graph neural networks: a case study in multi-component phase equilibrium. Digital Discovery, 2(1):138–151, 2023

    2023

  139. [148]

    Pooling solvent mixtures for solvation free energy predictions

    Roel J Leenhouts, Nathan Morgan, Emad Al Ibrahim, William H Green, and Florence H Vermeire. Pooling solvent mixtures for solvation free energy predictions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 513:162232, 2025

    2025

  140. [149]

    Fabian Jirasek, Rodrigo A. S. Alves, Julie Damay, Robert A. Vandermeulen, Robert Bamler, Michael Bortz, Stephan Mandt, Marius Kloft, and Hans Hasse. Machine learning in thermodynamics: Prediction of activity coefficients by matrix completion. The Journal of Physical Chemistry ...

    2020

  141. [150]

    Neural recommender system for the activity coefficient prediction and unifac model extension of ionic liquid-solute systems

    Guzhong Chen, Zhen Song, Zhiwen Qi, and Kai Sundmacher. Neural recommender system for the activity coefficient prediction and unifac model extension of ionic liquid-solute systems. AIChE Journal, 67(4):e17171, 2021

    2021

  142. [151]

    A smile is all you need: predicting limiting activity coefficients from SMILES with natural language processing

    Benedikt Winter, Clemens Winter, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. A smile is all you need: predicting limiting activity coefficients from SMILES with natural language processing. Digital Discovery, 1(6):859–869, 2022

    2022

  143. [152]

    The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences

    Milad Abolhasani and Eugenia Kumacheva. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nature Synthesis, 2(6):483–492, 2023

    2023

  144. [153]

    Schmid, Sterling G

    Gary Tom, Stefan P. Schmid, Sterling G. Baird, Yang Cao, Kourosh Darvish, Han Hao, Stanley Lo, Sergio Pablo-García, Ella M. Rajaonson, Marta Skreta, Naruki Yoshikawa, Samantha Corapi, Gun Deniz Akkoc, Felix Strieth-Kalthoff, Martin Seifrid, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Self-driving ...

    2024

  145. [154]

    Skilton, Richard A

    Ryan A. Skilton, Richard A. Bourne, Zacharias Amara, Raphael Horvath, Jing Jin, Michael J. Scully, Emilia Streng, Samantha L. Y . Tang, Peter A. Summers, Jiawei Wang, Eduardo Pérez, Nigist Asfaw, Guilherme L. P. Aydos, Jairton Dupont, Gurbuz Comak, Michael W. George, and Marty...

    2015

  146. [155]

    Fitzpatrick, Timothé Maujean, Amanda C

    Daniel E. Fitzpatrick, Timothé Maujean, Amanda C. Evans, and Steven V . Ley. Across-the-world automated optimization and continuous-flow synthesis of pharmaceutical agents operating through a cloud-based server. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English), 57(46):15128–15...

    2018

  147. [156]

    Taylor, Dogancan Karan, Kok Foong Lee, Simon D

    Jiaru Bai, Sebastian Mosbach, Connor J. Taylor, Dogancan Karan, Kok Foong Lee, Simon D. Rihm, Jethro Akroyd, Alexei A. Lapkin, and Markus Kraft. A dynamic knowledge graph approach to distributed self-driving laboratories. Nature Communications, 15(1):462, 2024

    2024

  148. [157]

    Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri Chatterji, Annie Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jare...

    2021 arXiv

  149. [158]

    A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting. 2024

    2024

  150. [159]

    Alshehri, Akshay Ajagekar, and Fengqi You

    Benjamin Decardi-Nelson, Abdulelah S. Alshehri, Akshay Ajagekar, and Fengqi You. Generative ai and process systems engineering: The next frontier. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 187:108723, 2024

    2024

  151. [160]

    Advances and Open Challenges in Federated Learning with Foundation Models

    Chao Ren, Han Yu, Hongyi Peng, Xiaoli Tang, Anran Li, Yulan Gao, Alysa Ziying Tan, Bo Zhao, Xiaoxiao Li, Zengxiang Li, and Qiang Yang. Advances and Open Challenges in Federated Learning with Foundation Models. 2024

    2024

  152. [161]

    Chem- crow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools

    Andres M Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D White, and Philippe Schwaller. Chem- crow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05376, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  153. [162]

    A perspective on foundation models in chemistry

    Junyoung Choi, Gunwook Nam, Jaesik Choi, and Yousung Jung. A perspective on foundation models in chemistry. JACS Au, 5(4):1499–1518, 2025

    2025

  154. [163]

    Incentivizing data contribution in cross-silo federated learning

    Chao Huang, Shuqi Ke, Charles Kamhoua, Prasant Mohapatra, and Xin Liu. Incentivizing data contribution in cross-silo federated learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2203.03885v2, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  155. [164]

    Incentive mechanisms for federated learning: From economic and game theoretic perspective

    Xuezhen Tu, Kun Zhu, Nguyen Cong Luong, Dusit Niyato, Yang Zhang, and Juan Li. Incentive mechanisms for federated learning: From economic and game theoretic perspective. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 8(3):1566–1593, 2022

    2022

  156. [165]

    Cross-silo federated learning: Challenges and opportunities

    Chao Huang, Jianwei Huang, and Xin Liu. Cross-silo federated learning: Challenges and opportunities. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2206.12949v1, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  157. [166]

    When federated learning meets oligopoly competition: Stability and model differentiation

    Chao Huang, Justin Dachille, and Xin Liu. When federated learning meets oligopoly competition: Stability and model differentiation. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(16):27409–27420, 2024

    2024

  158. [167]

    Chapter 15 - data valuation in federated learning

    Zhaoxuan Wu, Xinyi Xu, Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Yao Shu, Xiaoqiang Lin, Lucas Agussurja, Zhongxiang Dai, See-Kiong Ng, Chuan-Sheng Foo, Patrick Jaillet, Trong Nghia Hoang, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Chapter 15 - data valuation in federated learning. In Lam M. Nguyen, editor, Fed...

    2024

  159. [168]

    Chapter 16 - incentives in federated learning

    Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Sebastian Shenghong Tay, Xinyi Xu, Yehong Zhang, Zhaoxuan Wu, Xiaoqiang Lin, See-Kiong Ng, Chuan-Sheng Foo, Patrick Jaillet, Trong Nghia Hoang, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Chapter 16 - incentives in federated learning. In Lam M. Nguyen, editor, Federated ...

    2024

  160. [169]

    Federated learning for generalization, robustness, fairness: A survey and benchmark

    Wenke Huang, Mang Ye, Zekun Shi, Guancheng Wan, He Li, Bo Du, and Qiang Yang. Federated learning for generalization, robustness, fairness: A survey and benchmark. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PP:1–20, 2024

    2024

  161. [170]

    Technical report: Coopetition in heterogeneous cross-silo federated learning

    Chao Huang, Justin Dachille, and Xin Liu. Technical report: Coopetition in heterogeneous cross-silo federated learning

  162. [171]

    Publishing neural networks in drug discovery might compromise training data privacy

    Fabian P Krüger, Johan Östman, Lewis Mervin, Igor V Tetko, and Ola Engkvist. Publishing neural networks in drug discovery might compromise training data privacy. Journal of Cheminformatics, 17(1):38, 2025

    2025

  163. [172]

    How to backdoor federated learning

    Eugene Bagdasaryan, Andreas Veit, Yiqing Hua, Deborah Estrin, and Vitaly Shmatikov. How to backdoor federated learning. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 2938–2948. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  164. [173]

    Zhao, Saurabh Bagchi, Salman Avestimehr, Kevin S

    Joshua C. Zhao, Saurabh Bagchi, Salman Avestimehr, Kevin S. Chan, Somali Chaterji, Dimitris Dimitriadis, Jiacheng Li, Ninghui Li, Arash Nourian, and Holger R. Roth. Federated learning privacy: Attacks, defenses, applications, and policy landscape - a survey. arXiv Preprint arX...

    2024 arXiv

  165. [174]

    Machine learning in industrial control system (ics) security: current landscape, opportunities and challenges

    Abigail MY Koay, Ryan K L Ko, Hinne Hettema, and Kenneth Radke. Machine learning in industrial control system (ics) security: current landscape, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 60(2):377–405, 2023. 24 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2023

  166. [175]

    A black-box adversarial attack on demand side management

    Eike Cramer and Ji Gao. A black-box adversarial attack on demand side management. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 186:108681, 2024

    2024

  167. [176]

    McGill, Florence H

    Esther Heid, Charles J. McGill, Florence H. Vermeire, and William H. Green. Characterizing uncertainty in machine learning for chemistry. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(13):4012–4029, 2023

    2023

  168. [177]

    Approaches to uncertainty quantification in federated deep learning

    Florian Linsner, Linara Adilova, Sina Däubener, Michael Kamp, and Asja Fischer. Approaches to uncertainty quantification in federated deep learning. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 128–145. Springer, 2021

    2021

  169. [178]

    Uncertainty quantification in federated learning for heterogeneous health data

    Yuwei Zhang, Tong Xia, Abhirup Ghosh, and Cecilia Mascolo. Uncertainty quantification in federated learning for heterogeneous health data. In International Workshop on Federated Learning for Distributed Data Mining, 2023

    2023

  170. [179]

    Overcoming noisy and irrelevant data in federated learning

    Tiffany Tuor, Shiqiang Wang, Bong Jun Ko, Changchang Liu, and Kin K Leung. Overcoming noisy and irrelevant data in federated learning. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 5020–5027. IEEE, 2021

    2020

  171. [180]

    Robust federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients

    Xiuwen Fang and Mang Ye. Robust federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10072–10081, June 2022

    2022

  172. [181]

    Robust federated learning with noisy labels

    Seunghan Yang, Hyoungseob Park, Junyoung Byun, and Changick Kim. Robust federated learning with noisy labels. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 37(2):35–43, 2022

    2022

  173. [182]

    Labeling chaos to learning harmony: Federated learning with noisy labels

    Vasileios Tsouvalas, Aaqib Saeed, Tanir Ozcelebi, and Nirvana Meratnia. Labeling chaos to learning harmony: Federated learning with noisy labels. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(2):1–26, 2024

    2024

  174. [183]

    Lane, Ruben Mayer, and Hans-Arno Jacobsen

    Herbert Woisetschläger, Alexander Erben, Bill Marino, Shiqiang Wang, Nicholas D. Lane, Ruben Mayer, and Hans-Arno Jacobsen. Federated learning priorities under the european union artificial intelligence act. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2402.05968v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  175. [184]

    Chapter 21 - ethical considerations and legal issues relating to federated learning

    Warren Chik and Florian Gamper. Chapter 21 - ethical considerations and legal issues relating to federated learning. In Lam M. Nguyen, editor, Federated Learning, pages 369–391. Elsevier Science & Technology, San Diego, 2024

    2024

  176. [185]

    Aisb consortium: https://www.apheris.com/industries/aisb

  177. [186]

    Federated graph neural networks: Overview, techniques, and challenges

    Rui Liu, Pengwei Xing, Zichao Deng, Anran Li, Cuntai Guan, and Han Yu. Federated graph neural networks: Overview, techniques, and challenges. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, PP, 2024

    2024

  178. [187]

    Krüger, Johan Östman, Lewis Mervin, Igor V

    Fabian P. Krüger, Johan Östman, Lewis Mervin, Igor V . Tetko, and Ola Engkvist. Publishing neural networks in drug discovery might compromise training data privacy

  179. [188]

    Spt-nrtl: A physics- guided machine learning model to predict thermodynamically consistent activity coefficients

    Benedikt Winter, Clemens Winter, Timm Esper, Johannes Schilling, and André Bardow. Spt-nrtl: A physics- guided machine learning model to predict thermodynamically consistent activity coefficients. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 568:113731, 2023

    2023

  180. [189]

    Hanna: hard- constraint neural network for consistent activity coefficient prediction

    Thomas Specht, Mayank Nagda, Sophie Fellenz, Stephan Mandt, Hans Hasse, and Fabian Jirasek. Hanna: hard- constraint neural network for consistent activity coefficient prediction. Chemical Science, 15(47):19777–19786, 2024

    2024

  181. [190]

    Machine learning models for vapor-liquid equilibrium of binary mixtures: State of the art and future opportunities

    Gabriel Y Ottaiano and Tiago D Martins. Machine learning models for vapor-liquid equilibrium of binary mixtures: State of the art and future opportunities. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2024

    2024

  182. [191]

    K. C. Felton, H. Ben-Safar, and A. A. Alexei. DeepGamma: A deep learning model for activity coefficient prediction. In 1st Annual AAAI Workshop on AI to Accelerate Science and Engineering (AI2ASE), 2022

    2022

  183. [192]

    Gibbs–helmholtz graph neural network: capturing the temperature dependency of activity coefficients at infinite dilution

    Edgar Ivan Sanchez Medina, Steffen Linke, Martin Stoll, and Kai Sundmacher. Gibbs–helmholtz graph neural network: capturing the temperature dependency of activity coefficients at infinite dilution. Digital Discovery, 2:781–798, 2023

    2023

  184. [193]

    Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M

    Jan G. Rittig, Karim Ben Hicham, Artur M. Schweidtmann, Manuel Dahmen, and Alexander Mitsos. Graph neural networks for temperature-dependent activity coefficient prediction of solutes in ionic liquids. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 171:108153, 2023

    2023

  185. [194]

    Rittig, Kobi C

    Jan G. Rittig, Kobi C. Felton, Alexei A. Lapkin, and Alexander Mitsos. Gibbs–duhem-informed neural networks for binary activity coefficient prediction. Digital Discovery, 2(6):1752–1767, 2023

    2023

  186. [195]

    Schoenholz, Patrick F

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Patrick F. Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E. Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1263–1272, 2017. 25 RITTIG & KORTMANN A PREPRINT

    2017

  187. [196]

    Model performances evaluated for infinite dilution activity coefficients prediction at 298.15 k

    Thomas Brouwer and Boelo Schuur. Model performances evaluated for infinite dilution activity coefficients prediction at 298.15 k. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 58(20):8903–8914, 2019

    2019

  188. [197]

    Federated learning with personalization layers

    Manoj Ghuhan Arivazhagan, Vinay Aggarwal, Aaditya Kumar Singh, and Sunav Choudhary. Federated learning with personalization layers. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1912.00818v1, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  189. [198]

    Federated learning with partial model personalization

    Krishna Pillutla, Kshitiz Malik, Abdel-Rahman Mohamed, Mike Rabbat, Maziar Sanjabi, and Lin Xiao. Federated learning with partial model personalization. International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 17716–17758, 2022

    2022

  190. [199]

    Fast graph representation learning with pytorch geometric

    Matthias Fey and Jan Eric Lenssen. Fast graph representation learning with pytorch geometric. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1903.02428v3, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  191. [200]

    Rdkit: Open-source cheminformatics

    Greg Landrum. Rdkit: Open-source cheminformatics

  192. [201]

    Beutel, Taner Topal, Akhil Mathur, Xinchi Qiu, Javier Fernandez-Marques, Yan Gao, Lorenzo Sani, Kwing Hei Li, Titouan Parcollet, Pedro Porto Buarque de Gusmão, and Nicholas D

    Daniel J. Beutel, Taner Topal, Akhil Mathur, Xinchi Qiu, Javier Fernandez-Marques, Yan Gao, Lorenzo Sani, Kwing Hei Li, Titouan Parcollet, Pedro Porto Buarque de Gusmão, and Nicholas D. Lane. Flower: A friendly federated learning research framework. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2007.1...

    2007 arXiv

  193. [202]

    Christofides, Wanlu Wu, Yujia Wang, Fahim Abdullah, Aisha Alnajdi, and Yash Kadakia

    Zhe Wu, Panagiotis D. Christofides, Wanlu Wu, Yujia Wang, Fahim Abdullah, Aisha Alnajdi, and Yash Kadakia. A tutorial review of machine learning-based model predictive control methods.Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 2024

    2024

  194. [203]

    Deep transfer learning for system identification using long short-term memory neural networks

    Kaicheng Niu, Mi Zhou, Chaouki T Abdallah, and Mohammad Hayajneh. Deep transfer learning for system identification using long short-term memory neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03125, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  195. [204]

    Schulze, Danimir T

    Jan C. Schulze, Danimir T. Doncevic, and Alexander Mitsos. Identification of mimo wiener-type koopman models for data-driven model reduction using deep learning. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 161:107781, 2022

    2022

  196. [205]

    Jacobsen and Sigurd Skogestad

    Elling W. Jacobsen and Sigurd Skogestad. Multiple steady states in ideal two–product distillation. AIChE Journal, 37(4):499–511, 1991

    1991

  197. [206]

    Pearson and Martin Pottmann

    Ronald K. Pearson and Martin Pottmann. Gray-box identification of block-oriented nonlinear models. Journal of Process Control, 10(4):301–315, 2000

    2000

  198. [207]

    Tensorflow, 2024

    TensorFlow Developers. Tensorflow, 2024

    2024

  199. [208]

    Hart, Jean-Paul Watson, and David L

    William E. Hart, Jean-Paul Watson, and David L. Woodruff. Pyomo: modeling and solving mathematical programs in python. Mathematical Programming Computation, 3(3):219–260, 2011

    2011

  200. [209]

    Bynum, Gabriel A

    Michael L. Bynum, Gabriel A. Hackebeil, William E. Hart, Carl D. Laird, Bethany L. Nicholson, John D. Siirola, Jean-Paul Watson, and David L. Woodruff. Pyomo - optimization modeling in Python, volume volume 67 of Springer eBook Collection. Springer, Cham, third edition edition, 2021

    2021

  201. [210]

    Joel A. E. Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, James B. Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control. Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1– 36, 2019

    2019

  202. [211]

    Physics-informed neural networks for dynamic process operations with limited physical knowledge and data

    Mehmet Velioglu, Song Zhai, Sophia Rupprecht, Alexander Mitsos, Andreas Jupke, and Manuel Dahmen. Physics-informed neural networks for dynamic process operations with limited physical knowledge and data. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 192:108899, 2025

    2025

  203. [212]

    Constante Flores, and Can Li

    Hao Chen, Gonzalo E. Constante Flores, and Can Li. Physics-informed neural networks with hard linear equality constraints. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 189:108764, 2024. 26

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.