Machine learning based data driven inkjet printed electronics: jetting prediction for novel inks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 µm 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".