ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning for quantitative LIBS analysis of aluminum alloys: a comparison of random forest, gradient boosting, and extremely randomized trees.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) is a versatile technique for characterizing materials and analyzing elements, but it is limited in its quantitative accuracy due to nonlinear effects. This study uses machine learning (ML) regression algorithms to improve the quantification of commercially pure aluminum and its alloys with multiple alloying elements. A dataset of LIBS spectra from standard samples was used to train three tree-based ML models: Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Extremely Randomized Trees (ET). These models were evaluated using standard regression metrics. Prediction errors were consistently low for both in-sample (non-independent) validation and independent validation samples (MAE < 0.25 wt%), confirming strong generalization. The ET model produced the lowest errors, particularly for binary and ternary alloys. The GB model generated the most statistically indistinguishable results compared to the reference values, primarily due to higher prediction variance. The RF model showed intermediate performance. Reliable predictions required at least three representative samples per alloy family, which emphasizes the importance of dataset diversity in LIBS-based machine learning workflows. Therefore, integrating LIBS with ML is an effective strategy for predicting elemental compositions in metallic alloys. Future work will extend this approach to other aluminum alloys and support the development of scalable frameworks for quantitative analysis.
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.