MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214918905 · doi:10.1088/2058-8585/ac5a39

Machine learning based data driven inkjet printed electronics: jetting prediction for novel inks

2022· article· en· W4214918905 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlexible and Printed Electronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMean squared errorDrop (telecommunication)Computer scienceMachine learningInkwellArtificial intelligenceSimulationEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Machine learning (ML) as a predictive methodology can potentially reduce the configuration cost and workload of inkjet printing. Inkjet printing has many advantages for additive manufacturing and printed electronics including low cost, scalability, non-contact printing and on-demand customization. Inkjet generates droplets with a piezoelectric dispenser controlled through frequency, voltage pulse and timing parameters. A major challenge is the design of jettable inks and the rapid optimization of stable jetting conditions whilst preventing common problems (no ejection, perturbation, satellite drop, multiple drops, drop breaking, nozzle clogging). Material consuming trial and error experiments are replaced here with a ML based jetting window. A dataset of machine and material properties is created from literature and experimental data. After exploratory data analysis and feature identification, various (linear and non-linear) regression models are compared in detail. The models are trained on 80% of the data and root mean square error (RMSE) is calculated on 20% test data. Simple polynomial relationships between the input and output features yield coarse prediction. Instead, small ensembles of decision trees (DTs) (boosted DTs and random forests) have improved predictive power for drop velocity and radius with RMSE of 0.39 m s −1 and 2.21 µ m respectively. The mean absolute percentage error is 3.87%. The models are validated with experimentally collected data for a novel ink where no data points with this ink were included in the training set. Additionally, several classification algorithms are utilized to categorize ink and printer parameters by jetting regime (‘single drop’, ‘multiple drops’, ‘no ejection’). Categorization and regression models are combined to improve overall model prediction. This article demonstrates that ML can be used to predict ink jetting behavior from 11 different ink and printing parameters. Different algorithms are analyzed and the optimal combination of algorithms is identified. It is shown that experimental and literature data can be combined and an initial dataset is created that other reserachers can build on in the future. ML enables efficient material and printing parameter selection speeding up the development of novel ink materials for printed electronics by eliminating jetting experiments that are money, time and material intensive.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it