ArticleScientific reports2026
Robust multi-objective metaheuristic optimization of Cr(III) electrodeposition on 42CrMo4 steel for energy-efficient wear resistance.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting a Cr(III) electrodeposition condition for 42CrMo4 steel is a conflicting engineering problem: the current-temperature region that improves surface finish does not necessarily minimize wear or electrical demand, while the preparation route that maximizes hardness can shift the preferred operating window. Here, this conflict is resolved through an AI-inspired robust multi-objective metaheuristic framework that converts the original experimental dataset into a five-objective decision problem coupling surface roughness, wear, specific energy consumption (SEC), Faradaic efficiency and preparation-level hardness. The measured current sweep at 40 [Formula: see text]C, temperature sweep at 50 A, Vickers microhardness data, Faradaic-efficiency trend and SEC trend are represented by shape-preserving cubic interpolation; roughness and wear are combined through an explicitly identified geometric reconstruction of the two orthogonal experimental sweeps because a full current-temperature factorial matrix was unavailable. Multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), NSGA-II and multi-objective Harris hawks optimization (MOHHO) independently search the same decision space while every candidate is stress-tested under [Formula: see text] A and [Formula: see text]C perturbations. Despite their different exploration mechanisms, all three algorithms converge toward a consistent favorable domain, yielding a consensus compromise near 53.6 A and 39.7 [Formula: see text]C with diamond polishing, equivalent to a mean cathodic current density of about 53.6 A dm[Formula: see text] for the 1.0 dm[Formula: see text] plated specimen area. The corresponding robust reconstructed responses are approximately 0.112 μm worst-case roughness, 4.29 mg worst-case wear and 91.3% minimum Faradaic efficiency, with a preparation-level mean hardness of about 1131 HV. Because the post-Pareto selector contains engineering preferences, this point is treated in the current manuscript as an equal-weight reference compromise rather than as a universal service optimum; explicit weight-priority and non-separable current-temperature interaction stress tests are reported below. The result solves the practical selection problem of choosing one defensible operating region when experimentally favorable conditions conflict across tribology, coating quality and process energy, while preserving a clear distinction between measured observations and post-experimental reconstructed responses.
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.