Robust optimisation of Nd: YLF laser beam micro-drilling process using Bayesian probabilistic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nd: YLF laser beam machining (LBM) process has a great potential to manufacture intricate shaped microproducts with its unique characteristics. Continuous improvement (CI) effort for LBM process is usually realised by response surface methodology, which is an important tool in Design of Six Sigma. However, when determining the optimal machining parameters in CI for LBM process, model parameter uncertainty is typically neglected. Performing worst case analysis in CI, this paper presents a new loss function method that takes model parameter uncertainty into account via Bayesian credible region. Unlike existing CI methods in LBM process, the proposed Bayesian probabilistic approach is based on seemingly unrelated regression which can produce more precise estimations of the model parameters than ordinary least squares in correlated multiple responses problems. An Nd: YLF laser beam micro-drilling process is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The comparison results show that micro-holes produced by the proposed approach have better quality than those of existing approaches in terms of robustness and process capability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".