ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of compressive strength of concrete based on improved artificial bee colony-multilayer perceptron algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental and machine learning prediction of compressive strength of chemically activated RHA based RAC using SHAP and PDP analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A comprehensive benchmark of active learning strategies with AutoML for small-sample regression in materials science.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are many factors that affect the compressive strength of concrete. The relationship between compressive strength and these factors is a complex nonlinear problem. Empirical formulas commonly used to predict the compressive strength of concrete are based on summarizing experimental data of several different mix proportions and curing periods, and their generality is poor. This article proposes an improved artificial bee colony algorithm (IABC) and a multilayer perceptron (MLP) coupled model for predicting the compressive strength of concrete. To address the shortcomings of the basic artificial bee colony algorithm, such as easily falling into local optima and slow convergence speed, this article introduces a Gaussian mutation operator into the basic artificial bee colony algorithm to optimize the initial honey source position and designs an MLP neural network model based on the improved artificial bee colony algorithm (IABC-MLP). Compared with traditional strength prediction models, the ABC-MLP model can better capture the nonlinear relationship of the compressive strength of concrete and achieve higher prediction accuracy when considering the compound effect of multiple factors. The IABC-MLP model built in this study is compared with the ABC-MLP and particle swarm optimization (PSO) coupling algorithms. The research shows that IABC can significantly improve the training and prediction accuracy of MLP. Compared with the ABC-MLP and PSO-MLP coupling models, the training accuracy of the IABC-MLP model is increased by 1.6% and 4.5%, respectively. This model is also compared with common individual learning algorithms such as MLP, decision tree (DT), support vector machine regression (SVR), and random forest algorithms (RF). Based on the comparison of prediction results, the proposed method shows excellent performance in all indicators and demonstrates the superiority of heuristic algorithms in predicting the compressive strength of concrete.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.