Predicting the sheet resistance of laser-induced graphitic carbon using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While laser-induced graphitic carbon (LIGC) has been used to fabricate cost-effective conductive carbon on flexible substrates for applications such as sensors and energy storage devices, predicting the resistance of the component fabricated via LIGC remains challenging. In this study, a two-step machine learning-based modeling framework is developed to predict the sheet resistance of the materials fabricated using LIGC. The two-step modeling framework consists of classification and regression. First, random forest (RF) is used to classify successful and failed trials. Second, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), RF, support vector machine with radial basis function, multivariate adaptive spline regression, and multilayer perceptron are used to predict the sheet resistance in each successful trial. In addition, an analysis of the change in sheet resistance with respect to laser energy per unit area is conducted to remove data points with high sheet resistance. XGBoost is also used to determine the importance of each process parameter. We demonstrate the modeling framework on datasets collected from experiments where LIGC lines (1D) and LIGC squares (2D) are engraved. For the 1D dataset, the RF classification model achieves a 95% accuracy. For both 1D and 2D datasets, a comparative study shows that XGBoost outperforms other algorithms. XGBoost predicts the sheet resistance of the LIGC lines and squares with a MAPE of 7.08% and 8.75%, respectively. XGBoost also identifies laser resolution as the most significant parameter. Moreover, experimental results show that models built on the dataset merging the 1D and 2D datasets result in lower prediction accuracy than those built on the 1D and 2D datasets separately. The modeling framework allows one to determine the sheet resistance of LIGC with varying laser processing conditions without conducting expensive and time-consuming experiments.
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".