Hardness prediction in the upsetting process of Al%ZrO<sub>2</sub>—an approach to machine learning using regression and classification models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study focuses on the prediction of metal hardness distribution in upsetting tests for different compositions of ZrO2 embedded with an aluminum matrix using machine learning algorithms and finite element (FE) analysis. The mass fraction of the ZrO2 particles varied from 4% to 8%, and three sets of solid cylindrical rods with Al4%ZrO2, Al6%ZrO2, and Al8%ZrO2 were prepared using the stir casting method. The upsetting process was simulated, and an equation for predicting hardness was developed from the equivalent strain distributions. Artificial neural networks (ANNs), multilinear regression (MLR) along with equations developed from FE analysis were used to train the model for regression analysis, considering the principal stresses, friction factor, anisotropy ratio, effective strain, and hoop strain as input and the magnitude of hardness as output parameters. Regression analysis reveals that ANN (tri-layer network), XGBoost, and MLR algorithms are the best suitable for the given data sets with a root mean square ( R2) greater than 0.95. XGBoost, ANN (narrow), and SVM are linear and are the most recommendable classifier algorithms for the current investigation. Hardness data from ring compression tests were used to validate the results obtained from the trained models with the test results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".