Comparative assessment of supervised machine learning algorithms for predicting geometric characteristics of laser cladded inconel 718
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laser cladding, an innovative surface modification and coating preparation process, has emerged as a research hotspot in material surface modification and green remanufacturing domains. In the laser cladding process, the interaction between laser light, powder particles, and the substrate results in a complicated mapping connection between process parameters and clad layer quality. This work aims to shed light on this mapping using fast evolving machine learning algorithms. A full factorial experimental design was employed to clad Inconel 718 powder on an A286 substrate comprising 64 groups. Analysis of variance, contour plots, and surface plots were used to explore the effects of laser power, powder feeding rate, and scanning speed on the width, height, and dilution rate of the cladding. The performance of the predictive models was evaluated using the index of merit (IM), which includes mean square error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2). By comparing the performance of the models, it was found that the Extra Trees, Random forest regression, Decision tree regression, and XGBoost algorithms exhibited the highest predictive accuracy. Specifically, the Extra Trees algorithm outperformed other machine learning models in predicting the cladding width, while the RFR algorithm excelled in predicting the associated height. The DTR algorithm demonstrated the best performance in predicting the cladding dilution rate. The R2 values for width, height, and dilution rate were found to be 0.949, 0.954, and 0.912, respectively, for these three 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".