Interpolation and Extrapolation Performance Measurement of Analytical and ANN-Based Flow Laws for Hot Deformation Behavior of Medium Carbon Steel
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work, a critical analysis of the most-commonly used analytical models and recently introduced ANN-based models was performed to evaluate their predictive accuracy within and outside the experimental interval used to generate them. The high-temperature deformation behavior of a medium carbon steel was studied over a wide range of strains, strain rates, and temperatures using hot compression tests on a Gleeble-3800. The experimental flow curves were modeled using the Johnson–Cook, Modified-Zerilli–Armstrong, Hansel–Spittel, Arrhenius, and PTM models, as well as an ANN model. The mean absolute relative error and root-mean-squared error values were used to quantify the predictive accuracy of the models analyzed. The results indicated that the Johnson–Cook and Modified-Zerilli–Armstrong models had a significant error, while the Hansel–Spittel, PTM, and Arrhenius models were able to predict the behavior of this alloy. The ANN model showed excellent agreement between the predicted and experimental flow curves, with an error of less than 0.62%. To validate the performance, the ability to interpolate and extrapolate the experimental data was also tested. The Hansel–Spittel, PTM, and Arrhenius models showed good interpolation and extrapolation capabilities. However, the ANN model was the most-powerful of all the models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it