Machine learning for screw design in single‐screw extrusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have significantly impacted various areas of technology, particularly in fields where large datasets are available. Screw designs are proprietary, and there is very limited information available in the open literature. In this study, we generated a dataset of 232 designs using computer simulation software for screw extrusion, involving solids transport, melting, and melt pumping. The parameters (features) and the outputs (targets) were introduced into four powerful machine learning (ML) algorithms. The capabilities of the four algorithms were assessed by comparing the predictions of each of the algorithms to the corresponding results of the simulations. Three of the algorithms demonstrated satisfactory performance, with the best‐performing one being further tested on an “unseen” dataset, which involved a screw of 75 mm and another of 127 mm in diameter. A machine‐learning technique called Permutation Feature Importance (PFI) was used to identify the features (parameters) with the greatest impact on the predictions. It is suggested that the same ML methodologies could be applied to datasets of existing real screw designs. Highlights Dataset obtained from simulation software. Four machine learning algorithms were employed. Assessment of algorithms based on training and testing data. Identification of parameters having greatest impact. Satisfactory predictions of mass flow rate, exit temperature, melting length, and more.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it