Critical Factors Governing the Frictional Coefficient in <scp>Mg</scp> Alloys—Learn From Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Data‐driven methods are emerging as a promising approach in discovering the correlation between tribological properties, composition, and mechanical properties of engineering materials. In the present study, the capability of several ML models in predicting the coefficient of friction (COF) of magnesium alloys is studied. To this end, first 1400 data points are extracted from prior studies through an extensive literature review. The collected data is then used to train models for the following two scenarios: (i) COF prediction using composition, processing parameters, and tribological variables; (ii) COF prediction using mechanical properties (hardness, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, ductility, and elastic modulus), and tribological variables. After preprocessing, the data is partitioned into train and test datasets where the train dataset is used for model training and hyperparameter tuning, K‐fold cross‐validation, and the test dataset is used for evaluating the best trained models. The results indicate that light gradient boosting (LGBM) accurately predicts COF of magnesium alloys using the processing procedure, heat treatment, alloy composition, and tribology variables with an R‐squared value of 0.89. Further, the gradient boosting method (GBM) achieves an R‐squared score of 0.87 for predicting the COF using mechanical properties and tribological variables, showing a promising performance. In addition, a comparative analysis between alloying elements, manufacturing process, heat treatment, mechanical properties, and tribological test variables is performed using feature importance in the trained random forest (RF) models. Our findings highlight the importance of normal load, elastic modulus, and content of Zn in determining the COF in magnesium alloys, which helps improve materials and mechanical system design for effective COF control.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".