Predictive modeling of MRR, TWR, and SR in spark-EDM of Al-4.5Cu–SiC using ANN and GEP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Al-4.5Cu alloy was reinforced with varying weight percentages of SiC particles (2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%) to create metal matrix composites via the stir casting method. The formation of intermetallic compounds was confirmed through energy dispersive spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction analysis. This article compares the performance of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Gene Expression Programming (GEP) models in predicting the Metal Removal Rate (MRR), tool wear rate, and surface roughness in the die-sinking electro-discharge machining (EDM) process of the ex-situ developed Al-4.5%Cu–SiC composites. The study considers three machine parameters—pulse on time (TON), pulse off time (TOFF), and current (I)—along with the weight fraction of SiC particles as input variables for the models. Both ANN and GEP models demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the EDM performance metrics, with correlation coefficients (R) ranging from 0.973 68 to 0.980 65 for the ANN model and 0.980 11 to 0.982 59 for the GEP model. Notably, the GEP model exhibited superior predictive capability, as evidenced by its higher correlation coefficients and lower root mean square error, indicating greater effectiveness in predicting the EDM process outcomes than the ANN model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".