ArticleScientific reports2026
Inverse input optimization for tuning two-ply yarn processing parameters using feedforward neural network.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, inverse input optimization (IIO) was employed as a simple, efficient, and novel approach for tuning industrial processes, specifically for optimizing two-ply cotton yarn parameters using a feedforward artificial neural network (ANN). Initially, the ANN model was trained using experimental data to capture the nonlinear relationship between yarn process parameters and tenacity. After training, all network weights and biases were fixed, and the embedded knowledge of the ANN was exploited to guide optimization. Using the IIO framework, input parameters were iteratively adjusted within the normalized design space based on the deviation between the predicted output and a predefined target. The adjustments were guided by a numerical gradient estimation, combined with an adaptive update rate and momentum term to balance exploration and exploitation. Sensitivity analysis using the Garson weight method (GWM) indicated that the twist direction of the two-ply yarn is the most influential factor, contributing 32.61% to the predicted tenacity. Applying IIO, the optimal yarn parameters were identified as first- and second-ply twists of 1000 TPM, a two-ply twist of 790 TPM, and a Z-twist direction, increasing yarn tenacity from 28.72 cN/tex for the initial sample to 35.62 cN/tex for the optimized sample. While the Genetic Algorithm (GA) achieved a minimum cost value similar to that obtained by IIO (approximately 3.8 × 10⁻⁵), IIO required only 271 function evaluations compared to 1020 for GA, demonstrating significantly higher computational efficiency. These findings establish IIO as a simple, low-cost, and competitive optimization strategy for industrial processing.
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.