Principles of Machine Learning and Its Application to Thermal Barrier Coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) along with big data (BD) management are currently viable approaches that can significantly help gas turbine components’ design and development. Optimizing microstructures of hot section components such as thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) to improve their durability has long been a challenging task in the gas turbine industry. In this paper, a literature review on ML principles and its various associated algorithms was presented first and then followed by its application to investigate thermal conductivity of TBCs. This combined approach can help better understand the physics behind thermal conductivity, and on the other hand, can also boost the design of low thermal conductivity of the TBCs system in terms of microstructure–property relationships. Several ML models and algorithms such as support vector regression (SVR), Gaussian process regression (GPR) and convolution neural network and regression algorithms were used via Python. A large volume of thermal conductivity data was compiled and extracted from the literature for TBCs using PlotDigitizer software and then used to test and validate ML models. It was found that the test data were strongly associated with five key factors as identifiers. The prediction of thermal conductivity was performed using three approaches: polynomial regression, neural network (NN) and gradient boosting regression (GBR). The results suggest that NN using the BR model and GBR have better prediction capability.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".