Predicting the Compressive Strength of Self-Consolidating Concrete Using Machine Learning and Conformal Inference
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
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) is an important innovation in concrete technology due to its superior properties. However, predicting its compressive strength remains challenging due to variability in its composition and uncertainties in prediction outcomes. This study combines machine learning (ML) models with conformal prediction (CP) to address these issues, offering prediction intervals that quantify uncertainty and reliability. A dataset of over 3000 samples with 17 input variables was used to train four ensemble methods, including Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Regressor (GBR), Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LGBM), along with CP techniques, including cross-validation plus (CV+) and conformalized quantile regression (CQR) methods. Results demonstrate that LGBM and XGBoost outperform RF, improving R2 by 4.5% and 5.7% and reducing Root-mean-square Error (RMSE) by 24.6% and 24.8%, respectively. While CV+ yielded narrower but constant intervals, CV+_Gamma and CQR provided adaptive intervals, highlighting trade-offs among precision, adaptability, and coverage reliability. The integration of CP offers a robust framework for uncertainty quantification in SCC strength prediction and marks a significant step forward in ML applications for concrete research.
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 | 0.001 | 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