Response surface and artificial neural network prediction model and optimization for surface roughness in machining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper deals with the development of prediction model using response surface methodology and artificial neural network and optimizes the process parameter using 3D surface plot. The experiment has been conducted using coated carbide insert in machining AISI 1040 steel under dry environment. The coefficient of determination value for RSM model is found to be high (R 2 = 0.99 close to unity). It indicates the goodness of fit for the model and high significance of the model. The percentage of error for RSM model is found to be only from -2.63 to 2.47. The maximum error between ANN model and experimental lies between -1.27 and 0.02 %, which is significantly less than the RSM model. Hence, both the proposed RSM and ANN prediction model sufficiently predict the surface roughness, accurately. However, ANN prediction model seems to be better compared with RSM model. From the 3D surface plots, the optimal parametric combination for the lowest surface roughness is d1-f1-v3 i.e. depth of cut of 0.1 mm, feed of 0.04 mm/rev and cutting speed of 260 m/min respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".