Estimating Compressive Strength of Concrete Using Neural Electromagnetic Field Optimization
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
Concrete compressive strength (CCS) is among the most important mechanical characteristics of this widely used material. This study develops a novel integrative method for efficient prediction of CCS. The suggested method is an artificial neural network (ANN) favorably tuned by electromagnetic field optimization (EFO). The EFO simulates a physics-based strategy, which in this work is employed to find the best contribution of the concrete parameters (i.e., cement (C), blast furnace slag (SBF), fly ash (FA1), water (W), superplasticizer (SP), coarse aggregate (AC), fine aggregate (FA2), and the age of testing (AT)) to the CCS. The same effort is carried out by three benchmark optimizers, namely the water cycle algorithm (WCA), sine cosine algorithm (SCA), and cuttlefish optimization algorithm (CFOA) to be compared with the EFO. The results show that hybridizing the ANN using the mentioned algorithms led to reliable approaches for predicting the CCS. However, comparative analysis indicates that there are appreciable distinctions between the prediction capacity of the ANNs created by the EFO and WCA vs. the SCA and CFOA. For example, the mean absolute error calculated for the testing phase of the ANN-WCA, ANN-SCA, ANN-CFOA, and ANN-EFO was 5.8363, 7.8248, 7.6538, and 5.6236, respectively. Moreover, the EFO was considerably faster than the other strategies. In short, the ANN-EFO is a highly efficient hybrid model, and can be recommended for the early prediction of the CCS. A user-friendly explainable and explicit predictive formula is also derived for the convenient estimation of the CCS.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it