← All projects

PROJECT 044 / 102 · Materials

Low-strength screening benchmark.

Can mix and age measurements rank specimens below a declared analytical strength threshold?

Focused analytical studyConcrete strengthExecuted notebook

THE RESULT

What the data shows

The largest computed metric is 0.9379 for Random forest; the smallest is 0.3814 for Prior baseline. Metric: average_precision (Average precision).

30 MPa is a study-defined threshold, not a code requirement or safety certification.

Low-strength screening benchmark — chart from the computed study output
Computed study output. Full values and units are available in the results download.
Computed results · 3 of 3 rows. Values rounded for display; source units and raw column names are retained in the download.
modelaccuracybalanced accuracymacro f1roc aucaverage precisionbrier
Prior baseline0.61860.50.38220.50.38140.236
Logistic regression0.88660.86690.87630.9370.920.1002
Random forest0.87630.86370.86750.95880.93790.08336
Download the complete result table ↓

THE METHOD

From source to answer

Binary screening below 30 MPa with composition-grouped evaluation.

The Python source exposes this study’s transformations. The complete project download includes shared preparation and evaluation routines.

EVALUATION

How the result was checked

Fixed 80/20 split of unique input groups (seed 42); exact input duplicates stay together.

836Training observations
194Test observations

Fixed models; default decision threshold; no holdout tuning.

Target and input features

Target: below_30mpa

Inputs: cement, slag, fly_ash, water, superplasticizer, coarse_aggregate, fine_aggregate, age

Download evaluation record ↓

THE NEXT DECISION

What follows from the finding

Treat the threshold as an example research screen; project-specific engineering requirements must be supplied separately.

Where the conclusion stops

Laboratory observations do not certify a construction mix. Composition and curing conditions are confounded. Models require independent engineering validation and cannot replace strength testing.

Related studies may reuse observations or holdouts. These are historical analyses; associations and backtests do not demonstrate commercial impact. Further model tuning needs new, untouched evaluation data.