ArticleScientific reports2026
Multi-objective optimization of hybrid laser cleaning process parameters for carbon deposits based on bayesian-SVR and NSGA-II.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hybrid laser cleaning combines continuous-wave (CW) laser preheating with pulsed laser ablation to remove piston crown carbon deposits, but conventional tuning cannot simultaneously minimize surface roughness (Sa) and carbon residue rate (RC). Four machine learning models—Support Vector Regression (SVR), XGBoost, Random Forest (RF), and Backpropagation Neural Network (BPNN)—are compared. SVR achieves optimal Sa prediction (Test R2 = 0.9874, bootstrap R2 = 0.985–0.998). For RC, Bayesian optimization improves SVR from R2 = 0.5658 to R2 = 0.8965 (58.45% increase). Feature analysis reveals divergent sensitivities: Sa responds equally to all parameters, while RC is dominated by frequency and CW laser power. NSGA-II generates 66 Pareto-optimal solutions within narrow parameter windows, identifying three operational regimes: low-Sa (0.894μm, RC = 4.3%), balanced (0.958μm, RC = 3%), and low-RC (RC = 1.9%, Sa = 1.209μm). Comprehensive validation—bootstrap resampling, cross-validation, SHAP analysis, and sensitivity testing—confirms model reliability despite limited data. This framework enables intelligent laser cleaning optimization, reducing trial-and-error costs while providing insights into laser–material interactions.
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.