Scenario quantile predictive control of bioreactor cultivation under kinetic parameter uncertainty
Downloads
Abstract
Bioreactor feeding requires a balance between product formation, substrate limits, and uncertain kinetics. This study examines an empirical scenario-quantile model predictive controller that constrains an order statistic of predicted substrate concentrations and adds a quadratic exceedance penalty. The reported simulation campaign uses a constant-volume, three-state continuous-culture surrogate with Monod growth, product inhibition, Luedeking–Piret product formation, and six lognormally dispersed kinetic parameters. Thirty parameter draws crossed with five process-noise seeds give 150 paired runs per controller. The proposed controller has a reported final titer of 5.049 ± 1.593 g/L and a pooled step violation frequency of 4.9%, compared with 2.788 ± 1.130 g/L for Open-Loop (OL) nominal optimization, 4.798 ± 1.516 g/L for Proportional–Integral (PI) control, 4.913 ± 1.506 g/L for fixed-margin Model Predictive Control (MPC), 5.044 ± 1.545 g/L for nominal MPC, and 5.059 ± 1.576 g/L for hard-scenario MPC. The hard-scenario controller has fewer observed violations, while an 80/90/95% order-statistic ablation changes violation frequencies from 7.9% to 2.9% with small mean-titer differences. These observations support a tunable empirical risk mechanism at the tested scale. They establish neither a finite-sample chance-constraint guarantee nor a joint batch safety guarantee. Inference, changing-volume fed-batch dynamics, and structural model error remain outside the executed comparison; the nested simulation design also limits interpretation of the reported run-level significance tests.
Keywords
Empirical quantile control Model predictive control Kinetic parameter uncertainty Continuous culture Scenario optimization Bioprocess simulationReferences (22)
- [1] Monod, J. (1949). The growth of bacterial cultures. Annual Review of Microbiology, 3, 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103
- [2] Andrews, J. F. (1968). A mathematical model for the continuous culture of microorganisms utilizing inhibitory substrates. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 10(6), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260100602
- [3] Banga, J. R., Balsa-Canto, E., Moles, C. G., & Alonso, A. A. (2005). Dynamic optimization of bioprocesses: Efficient and robust numerical strategies. Journal of Biotechnology, 117(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2005.02.013
- [4] Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V, & Scokaert, P. O. M. (2000). Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6), 789–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00214-9
- [5] Mesbah, A. (2016). Stochastic model predictive control: An overview and perspectives for future research. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 36(6), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2016.2602087
- [6] Bastin, G., & Dochain, D. (1990). On line estimation and adaptive control of bioreactors. Elsevier Amsterdam. 379. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-12088-3
- [7] Luedeking, R., & Piret, E. L. (1959). A kinetic study of the lactic acid fermentation. Batch process at controlled pH. Journal of Biochemical and Microbiological Technology and Engineering, 1(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmte.390010406
- [8] Calafiore, G. C., & Campi, M. C. (2006). The scenario approach to robust control design. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 51(5), 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2006.875041
- [9] Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and hall cRc. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018
- [10] Doucet, A., De Freitas, N., & Gordon, N. (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo methods & particle filters resources. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3437-9
- [11] Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. (2006). Numerical Optimization. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5
- [12] J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. D. (2017). Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, 2nd ed. Nob Hill. https://sites.engineering.ucsb.edu/~jbraw/mpc/MPC-book-2nd-edition-1st-printing.pdf
- [13] Scokaert, P. O. M., & Mayne, D. Q. (1998). Min max feedback model predictive control for constrained linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(8), 1136–1142. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.704989
- [14] Langson, W., Chryssochoos, I., Raković, S. V, & Mayne, D. Q. (2004). Robust model predictive control using tubes. Automatica, 40(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2003.08.009
- [15] Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., … & van Mulbregt, P. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
- [16] K. J. Åström & T. Hägglund. (1995). PID controllers: Theory, design, and tuning. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/pid-controllers-theory-design-and-tuning/
- [17] Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., … & Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
- [18] Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(03), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2007.55
- [19] Rockafellar, R. T., Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk, 2(3), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.21314/JOR.2000.038
- [20] Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968
- [21] Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522
- [22] Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733