Roundness error measurement using teaching learning based optimization algorithm and comparison with particle swarm optimization algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Form deviation of machined components need to be controlled within the required tolerance values for proper assembly and to serve the intended functional requirements. Methods like minimum zone circle (MZC) method, minimum circumscribed circle (MCC) method, maximum inscribed circle (MIC) method and least square circle (LSC) method are used to evaluate roundness error. Roundness error evaluation includes collection of co-ordinate points on the surface of the component and measurement using any of the above methods. Since, manual measurement of roundness error from these co-ordinate points is time consuming and less accurate, use of algorithms is highly appreciated. A detailed study of various optimization techniques showed that all evolutionary and swarm intelligence-based optimization algorithms require common control parameters and algorithm specific parameters. Improper tuning of these parameters either increases the computational effort or results in local optimal solution. Teaching Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) algorithm is used in this work as it does not require any algorithm specific parameters for the evaluation of roundness error. The results obtained are then compared with the results of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to know the merits and demerits of both the algorithms when used for form measurement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".