A Machine Learning Approach for Predicting the Maximum Spreading Factor of Droplets upon Impact on Surfaces with Various Wettabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drop impact on a dry substrate is ubiquitous in nature and industrial processes, including aircraft de-icing, ink-jet printing, microfluidics, and additive manufacturing. While the maximum spreading factor is crucial for controlling the efficiency of the majority of these processes, there is currently no comprehensive approach for predicting its value. In contrast to the traditional approach based on scaling laws and/or analytical models, this paper proposes a data-driven approach for estimating the maximum spreading factor using supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms such as linear regression, decision tree, random forest, and gradient boosting. For this purpose, a dataset of hundreds of experimental results from the literature and our own—spanning the last thirty years—is collected and analyzed. The dataset was divided into training and testing sets, each representing 70% and 30% of the input data, respectively. Subsequently, machine learning techniques were applied to relate the maximum spreading factor to relevant features such as flow controlling dimensionless numbers and substrate wettability. In the current study, the gradient boosting regression model, capable of handling structured high-dimensional data, is found to be the best-performing model, with an R2-score of more than 95%. Finally, the ML predictions agree well with the experimental data and are valid across a wide range of impact conditions. This work could pave the way for the development of a universal model for controlling droplet impact, enabling the optimization of a wide variety of industrial applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".