New Approach for Automated Explanation of Material Phenomena (AA6082) Using Artificial Neural Networks and ChatGPT

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and ready to be published after some minor revision.

 

1. The casting speed is important to determine the predicted values. Please describe more about the casting speed.

 

2. Could you describe the method that you conducted to observe the surface microstructure in Figure 2?

3. Explain how to make the materials precisely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article: New Approach for Automated Explanation of Material Phenomena Using Artificial Neural Networks

Review/6 July 24

Dear Authors

Your topic is very relevant because AI is increasingly used in industry, and ChatGPT is used by people, although not everyone admits it.

As your reviewer, I have a few comments;

Note 1 The title of your paper, write in it that you use conversation with ChatGPT and that this applies to aluminum. Your title must be consistent with the job.

Note 2 Abstract. I noticed that the abbreviation CAE is not explained (exact explanation: Conditional Average Estimator)

Note 3: When having a chat with ChatGPT, do not use a tilted font, only mark at the beginning that it is a ChatGPT conversation.

 Best wishes

 Reviewer

(This is my first paper to review, with ChatGPT conversation for scientific purposes in it, super)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a general framework to predicted the CAE results to improve the accuracy of assessments. Since the source of the training data is not clear to the user, I believe that generative AI can only be used as an aid to analyze experimental or simulation results. Therefore I do not recommend the article to be published.

(1) In the Introduction Section, there is a lack of literature review on the use of GPT to interpret the CAE results.

(2) In Section 2.2, the network structure of CAE ANN needs to be given. The data sources required for network training are not specified.

(3) What is the version of ChatGPT? What are the questions posed? The article lacks the appropriate instructions.

(4) How do you justify the interpretation of GPT generation? The text lacks the appropriate explanation.

(5) It is recommended to give the CAE model and the boundary conditions used for simulation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made changes according to my suggestions. Thus, I recommend for acceptance in its current form.