ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Available ScienceDirect
Procedia
onlineCIRP
Available
00 (2019) 000–000
atonline
www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Procedia
CIRP 00 CIRP
(2017)101
000–000
(2021) 106–109
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
9th CIRP Conference on High Performance Cutting
9th CIRP
9thConference on HighonPerformance CuttingCutting
(HPC 2020)
Logistic classification for toolHigh
CIRP Conference lifePerformance
modeling in machining
Logistic Jaydeep
classification
28th CIRP for
a, tool life
Design Conference,
Karandikar *, Tony May modeling
a,b Nantes, in
2018,
Schmitz machining
France
, Scott Smith a

A new methodology to Karandikar

analyze the functional and TN physical
a architecture of
Energy and Transportation Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
a

Jaydeep
University
b
a,
*, Tony
of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1512 Schmitz
Middle
a,b
, Scott
Dr., Knoxville, Smith
37996, USA

existing
* Corresponding products
author. Tel.:
Energy
a for an
+1-865-574-4641;
and Transportation assembly
fax: +1-865-241-3955. oriented
Science Division, E-mail
Oak address:
Ridge product
karandikarjm@ornl.gov
National Laboratory, family
Oak Ridge, identification
TN 37830, USA
b
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1512 Middle Dr., Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-865-574-4641; fax: +1-865-241-3955. E-mail address: karandikarjm@ornl.gov
Abstract
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
This paper describes the application of logistic classification for tool life modeling and prediction in an industrial setting using shop floor data.
Abstract
*Tool life is treated
Corresponding as Tel.:
author. a classification
+33 3 87 37 problem sinceaddress:
54 30; E-mail tool wear can only be measured at the time of tool replacement in a production environment.
paul.stief@ensam.eu
Laboratory tool wear experiments are used to simulate shop floor wear data by two states: not worn (class 0); and worn (class 1). To incorporate
This paper describes the application of logistic classification for tool life modeling and prediction in an industrial setting using shop floor data.
non-linearity in logistic classification, a log-transformation of input features is performed. The logistic classification approach, results, and
Tool life is treated as a classification problem since tool wear can only be measured at the time of tool replacement in a production environment.
interpretability of the logistic model are presented.
Laboratory tool wear experiments are used to simulate shop floor wear data by two states: not worn (class 0); and worn (class 1). To incorporate
Abstract
non-linearity in logistic classification, a log-transformation of input features is performed. The logistic classification approach, results, and
© 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
interpretability
InThis
today’s of the logistic model are presented. more product variety and customization is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
is an business
open access environment,
article under thethe
trend
CCtowards
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
agile and reconfigurable
© 2020 The Authors.
Peer-review Statement: production
Published
Peer review systems
by Elsevier
under the emerged
B.V. to cope
responsibility ofwith various products
the scientific committeeandofproduct families.
the 9th CIRP To design
Conference onand
Highoptimize production
Performance
© 2019
systems
This is The
as
an Authors,
well
open as to
access Published
choose
article the by
under Elsevier
optimal
the CC B.V. matches,
product
BY-NC-ND product
license analysis methods are needed. Indeed, most
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) of the known methods aim to
Cutting
This
analyzeis aanproduct
Peer-review open access
under onearticle
orresponsibility
product under
of
familythescientific
the CCthe
on BY-NC-ND
committee
physical license
of the
level. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
9th CIRP
Different Conference
product on however,
families, High Performance
may differCutting.
largely in terms of the number and
Peer-review
nature Statement:This
of components. Peerfact
review underan
impedes theefficient
responsibility of the scientific
comparison and choice committee of the 9th
of appropriate CIRPfamily
product Conference on High for
combinations Performance
the production
Keywords: logistic classification; machine learning; tool wear;
Cutting
system. A new methodology is proposed to analyze existing products in view of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
these products in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
Keywords:
assembly logistic classification;
systems. Based on Datum machineFlow learning;
Chain,toolthewear;
physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a1.functional
Introduction analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical t architecture graph (HyFPAG)
tool replacement time is the output which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both,tmproduction meansystem
valueplanners and from
of tool life product designers. An
experimental dataillustrative
example
Tool oflife
a nail-clipper
is one of is used
the to explainlimitations
significant the proposedtomethodology.
machining Antindustrial case study
standard on twoof
deviation product
tool families
life from of steering columns
experimental dataof
1. Introduction
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial t s
evaluation oftool
the replacement
proposed time
approach.
productivity. Tool life is traditionally defined as the time ytm logistic
mean valuemodelof output
tool life from experimental data
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
required for the tool wear to reach a pre-determined wear limit C Taylor tool life coefficient
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018. of tool life from experimental data
Tool life is one of the significant limitations to machining ts standard deviation
(flank, notch, Tool
productivity. or crater
life depth), where tooldefined
is traditionally wear isasthetheloss of
time T
y tool lifemodel output
logistic
material from the
required Assembly;
Keywords: tool
for the tool wear
Design cutting edge
to reach
method; during operation
a pre-determined
Family identification due
wear limit to V
C cutting tool
Taylor speedlife coefficient
interaction with the workpiece material [1].
(flank, notch, or crater depth), where tool wear is the loss of θT logistic
tool life model parameters
material from the tool cutting edge during operation due to V cutting speed
Nomenclature
interaction with the workpiece material [1]. θ logistic model parameters
1. Introduction of the product range and characteristics manufactured and/or
g linear model of input features There haveinbeen
assembled many attempts
this system. in the literature
In this context, the main at modeling
challenge in
Nomenclature
k Due number to theof inputfast features
development in the domain of modelling and analysis is now not only to cope withsuch
and predicting tool life. The models are empirical, as
single
communication and Taylor-type toolmany lifeattempts
equations orliterature
response surface
m
g number of
linear model data ofanpoints
ongoing
input featurestrend of digitization and products,
There have
methodology
a limited
been
[1-4],
product
or
range in
physics-based,
or the
existing
including
product families,
at modeling
analytical and
digitalization,
n
k Taylormanufacturing
number tool enterprises are facing important
life coefficient
of input features but
andalso to be able
predicting to analyze
tool life. The and to compare
models products tosuch
are empirical, define
as
challenges
p in today’s
probability market environments: a continuing finite
new element
product
Taylor-type methods
families.
tool It
life [5-7].
can be The challenge
observed
equations or that for the
classical
response practical
existing
surface
m number of data points implementation of regrouped
tendency
xn towards
logistic
Taylor reduction
model
tool lifeinput of product development times and
coefficient product
methodologyfamilies are
[1-4], orexisting inmodels
function
physics-based, isofthat
including they
clients require
or features.
analytical and
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, there is an increasing extensive
However,
finite elementexperimentation
assembly oriented
methods to calibrate
product
[5-7]. The the
families
challenge model
are
for coefficients;
hardly
the to find.
practical
p probability
demand of customization,
logistic
xThis manuscript inputbeing
modelauthored at the same time in a global On the productoffamily
implementation level,models
existing productsisdiffer that mainly in two
they require
competition with has been
competitorsby all UT-Battelle,
over theLLC under Contract
world. No. DE-AC05-00OR22725
This trend, main with the U.S.
characteristics:
extensive Department
(i) the
experimentation number
to ofof
calibrate Energy. The United
components
the model States
and (ii) the
coefficients;
Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up,
which is inducing the development from macro to micro type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
markets,
This results
manuscript has in
been diminished
authored by lot sizes
UT-Battelle, due
LLC to
under augmenting
Contract No. Classical
DE-AC05-00OR22725
The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored researchmethodologies
with considering
the U.S. Department
in accordance with the DOE mainly
of Energy.
Public single
The United
Access products
States
Plan.2212-8271
Government
product
© 2019 The retains and
varieties
Authors, the publisher,
(high-volume
Published by accepting
to
by Elsevier B.V. the article
low-volume for publication,
production) [1]. acknowledges
or solitary,that thealready
United States Government
existing retainsfamilies
product a non-exclusive,
analyzepaid-up,
the
irrevocable, world-wide license to publish
CCorBY-NC-ND
reproduce the
To Thiscope with
is an open this augmenting
access article under thevariety aspublished
as welllicense form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
to(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
The Department
Peer-review of Energy
Statement: Peerwill provide
review public
under access to theseofresults
the responsibility of federally sponsored
the scientific of theresearch in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan.2212-8271
identify
© 2019 Thepossible optimization
Authors, Published by Elsevierpotentials
B.V. in the existingcommittee
causes 9th CIRP
difficultiesConference on High
regarding Performance
an efficientCutting
definition and
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review Statement: Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th CIRP Conference on High Performance Cutting
2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of the
of the scientific
scientific committee
committee of theof28th
the CIRP
9th CIRP Conference
Design Conferenceon2018.
High Performance Cutting.
10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.125
 Jaydeep Karandikar et al. / Procedia CIRP 101 (2021) 106–109 107
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

this is expensive and time-consuming for many tool-material
combinations and, therefore, can be infeasible in a production
environment. To address the problem of tool life prediction in
a production environment, this paper presents the application
of logistic classification for tool life modeling using shop floor
tool wear data. The concept is to treat production parts as tool
wear experiments and use the available tool wear data for
modeling tool life. However, in a production environment, tool
wear is typically only measured at the time of tool change
resulting in a single data point on the tool wear-cut time curve.
Therefore, tool life is considered as a classification problem
instead of a regression problem, where two classes are defined:
tool not worn (class 0); and tool worn (class 1) based on the
measured tool wear level. If the tool wear is less than the pre-
defined wear limit, the tool is not worn (class 0); otherwise, it
is worn (class 1). Tool life is the classification decision
boundary in time which separates the two classes. The
remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the procedure to simulate wear data from the shop
floor using laboratory experiments. Section 3 describes the
logistic classification method and application to tool life
modeling. A discussion on model interpretability is provided in
Section 4 followed by conclusions in Section 5.
2. Experimental results
To simulate shop floor tool wear data, tool wear experiments
were completed using a 19.05 mm diameter, single insert
Kennametal endmill in down milling. The insert was a 9.53 mm
square uncoated carbide Kennametal insert (107888126 C9 JC)
with zero rake and helix angles and a 15º relief angle. Tool wear
tests were performed at 149.6 m/min (2500 rpm), 299.2 m/min
(5000 rpm), and 448.9 m/min (7500 rpm). The feed per tooth
was 0.06 mm/tooth and the axial and radial depths of cut were
3 mm and 4.7 mm (25% radial immersion), respectively. The
insert wear status was measured at regular intervals using a
handheld microscope (60× magnification). Tool life, T, was
defined as the time required for the insert to reach a maximum
flank wear width of 0.3 mm (no crater wear was observed
during the tests). Three tests were completed at each cutting
speed, V. Table 1 shows the results. As seen from Table 1, there
is uncertainty in tool life results due to the stochastic nature of
tool wear and tool-to-tool performance variation. Taylor first
defined an empirical relationship between tool life and cutting
speed using a power law [2]:
The experimental results were used to simulate shop floor
data as follows. First, the tool life value at the selected cutting
speed was sampled from the normal distribution determined
from the three experimental test results shown in Table 1.
Second, the tool replacement time for wear measurement was
generated by a uniform random sample from the interval [tm -
3× ts, tm + ts]. The upper limit for the interval was limited to
one standard deviation above the mean tool life because tool
change in a production environment is typically conservative,
where the tool is replaced before tool wear exceeds the
threshold wear limit. Third, the tool life sample was compared
to the tool replacement time sample. If the tool replacement
time was less than the tool life, the tool was considered not
worn (class 0). Otherwise, the tool was worn (class 1). Figure
2 shows 30 data points (10 at each test spindle speed), where
blue denotes class 0 and red denotes class 1. As seen in Fig. 2,
the data has more points where the tool is not worn (21) than
when the tool is worn (9). This is representative of data
collected from the production environment. The simulated data
is not perfectly separable because the class 0 and class 1 data
points overlap. This accounts for the tool life uncertainty
observed in Table 1.
Table 1. Experimental tool life results.
Test # 149.6 m/min 299.2 m/min 448.9 m/min
(2500 rpm) (5000 rpm) (7500 rpm)
1 50.1 min. 8.5 min. 2.6 min.
2 68.5 min. 11.5 min. 3.2 min.
3 72.0 min. 9.5 min. 3.3 min.
Figure 1. Taylor tool life fit to the experimental tool life data.

𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑛𝑛 = 𝐶𝐶 (1)

In Eq. 1, n and C are coefficients which depend on the tool-

workpiece combination. The constant C is defined as the
cutting speed required to obtain a tool life of 1 min. Figure 1
shows the Taylor-tool life model fit to the experimental tool life
data shown in Table 1. The Taylor tool life constants were
determined as n = 0.363, and C = 675.7 m/min. The tool life at
the experimental spindle speeds was modeled as a normal
distribution. The mean, denoted by tm, and the standard
deviation, denoted by ts, was calculated from the three Figure 2. 30 simulated data points; blue denotes tool has not worn (class 0) and
experimental test results at each speed shown in Table 1. red denotes tool is worn (class 1).
108 Jaydeep Karandikar et al. / Procedia CIRP 101 (2021) 106–109
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

3. Logistic classification Taking the logarithm of Eq. 1 (Taylor tool life equation) and
rearranging the terms gives:
When classifying data, the task is to decide class
membership y' of an unknown data item x' based on a dataset log(𝑉𝑉) + 𝑛𝑛log(𝑇𝑇) = log(𝐶𝐶) (5)
D = (x1, y1),….,(xm,ym) of m data points xi with known class
membership yi [8]. For two classes, y is either 0 or 1. Logistic 1
log 𝑇𝑇 = − log 𝑉𝑉 +
log 𝐶𝐶
(6)
𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛
classification calculates the probability of class membership
given input data using the sigmoid function [9-10].

1
𝑝𝑝(𝑦𝑦 = 1|𝑥𝑥, 𝜃𝜃) =
1 + 𝑒𝑒 −𝑔𝑔(𝑥𝑥)

𝑔𝑔(𝑥𝑥) = 𝜃𝜃0 + 𝜃𝜃1 𝑥𝑥1 + 𝜃𝜃2 𝑥𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝜃𝜃𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 (2)

In Eq. 2, p is the probability, k is the number of input features

x, y is the class membership, and θn are the logistic model
parameters, where g(x) is a linear combination of the k input
features. The decision boundary between the two classes
satisfies the equation g(x) = 0 giving p(y = 1 | x, θ) and p(y = 0 Figure 3. Probability of class 1 (left) and the decision boundary (right) from
| x, θ) equal to 0.5. The logistic model parameters θ are learned the logistic classifier model.
using the input data by minimizing the cost function for the
logistic model [9-10]. The data shown in Fig. 2 was used to
train a logistic classification model; the inputs to the model
were cutting speed, V, and tool replacement time, t, and the
corresponding labeled class membership for tool wear (0 or 1).
In this study, the logistic classification fit was performed in
Python using the Scikit-learn library [11-12]. Since the logistic
classifier is linear, regularization was not used in training the
model. Figure 3 shows the probability of worn tool (class 1)
(left) and the decision boundary separating the two classes
(right) from the trained logistic model. As seen in Fig. 3, the
Figure 4. Probability of class 1 (left) and decision boundary (right) from
linear logistic classifier cannot capture the non-linear behavior
logistic classifier model with log-transformation of the input features.
of tool life with cutting speed. To enable non-linear
classification using the logistic classifier, a log-transformation
Comparing Eq. 4 and Eq. 6, the logistic classification model
of input features was performed to mimic the behavior of tool
parameters may be directly related to the Taylor tool life
life described by the Taylor tool life equation. With this
coefficients. This provides the desired interpretability for the
transformation, the classifier’s decision boundary is linear in
logistic classification model. To illustrate the approach, the
the logarithmic space and non-linear in the original space.
logistic model parameters from the fit to the log-transformed
Figure 4 shows the non-linear decision boundary resulting from
features, shown in Fig. 4, were θ0 = -140.3, θ1 = 21.4, and θ2 =
the log-transformation of the input features. Note that since the
8.1. The logistic model parameters were converted into the
data is not perfectly separable, the predicted decision boundary
equivalent Taylor tool life coefficients using Eq. 4 and Eq. 6 as
finds the best fit for the given dataset.
nlogistic = 0.378, and Clogistic = 704.0 m/min. Figure 5 shows a
comparison between the Taylor tool life fit and the logistic
4. Model interpretability
classification decision boundary trained using data shown in
Fig. 2.
Machine learning (ML) models are generally considered
“black box” where the ML model provides the relationship, but
its structure is not interpretable by humans. As noted in Section
3, the input features (cutting speed and tool replacement time)
were transformed into the log-space. Recall that tool life is
given by the decision boundary between the two classes which
satisfies the equation g(x) = 0 as shown in Eq. 2. The logistic
decision boundary can be rearranged as shown in Eq. 3 and Eq.
4.

𝜃𝜃0 + 𝜃𝜃1 log(𝑉𝑉) + 𝜃𝜃2 log(𝑡𝑡) = 0 (3)

𝜃𝜃1 𝜃𝜃0 Figure 5. Comparison between the Taylor tool life fit and the logistic
log(𝑡𝑡) = − log 𝑉𝑉 − (4)
𝜃𝜃2 𝜃𝜃2 classification decision boundary.
 Jaydeep Karandikar et al. / Procedia CIRP 101 (2021) 106–109
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
The input data shown in Fig. 2 was generated by randomly
sampling tool life and the tool replacement time from the
experimental results modeled as a normal distribution. To
evaluate the influence of input data on logistic classification
and the equivalent Taylor tool life coefficients, a Monte Carlo
simulation was performed, where 10 input data points at each
experimental cutting speed (30 total) were generated multiple
times using the procedure described in Section 2. The
simulated data was used to learn the logistic model parameters
and the equivalent Taylor coefficients from the logistic
parameters. Figure 6 shows the histogram of nlogistic and Clogistic
from the Monte Carlo simulations. The distribution of the
coefficients implies that the logistic model results are
dependent on the nature of the input data. To illustrate, Fig. 7
shows the logistic classification prediction for a sample input
data from a single Monte Carlo execution. The equivalent
Taylor tool life coefficients are nlogistic = 0.312, and Clogistic =
628.1 m/min. The logistic model prediction deviates
substantially from the Taylor tool life fit at 149.6 m/min. This
is because class 1 data points were not recorded at 149.6 m/min.
In a production environment, the problem of imbalanced data
can be addressed by generating synthetic data using expert
opinions, user experience, or extrapolating wear measurements
in time. The Monte Carlo simulation was repeated for 20, 50,
100, and 250 measurements at each cutting speed. Table 2
shows the results for mean and standard deviation of the
equivalent Taylor tool life coefficients from the trained logistic
model parameters. As seen from Table 2, the results converge
to nlogistic = 0.363, and Clogistic = 678.5 m/min, which are
different than the least squares Taylor tool life values (n =
0.363, and C = 675.7 m/min) due to the differences in the cost
function for the logistic model. As seen from Table 2, the
logistic classification approach can be effectively used to
model tool life in a production environment with binary
information (tool worn and tool not worn).
Figure 6. Histogram of the calculated Taylor tool life coefficients from the
trained logistic model parameters.
Figure 7. Probability of class 1 (left) and decision boundary (right) from
logistic classifier model with log-transformation of the input features.
109
6. Conclusions
A logistic classification approach for modeling tool life in a
production environment using shop floor data was presented.
The input data was simulated using tool life experiments and
divided into two classes: class 0 for tool not worn and class 1
for tool worn. A logistic classification model was fit to the data,
where a log-transformation of input features was performed. A
method to transform logistic model parameters into the
equivalent Taylor tool life coefficients was presented. This
provided interpretability for the logistic classification model.
Table 2. Equivalent Taylor tool life coefficients from logistic model parameters
as a function of the number of data points from the Monte Carlo simulation;
the values in parenthesis are the mean and standard deviation, respectively.
Data # nlogistic Clogistic (m/min)
30 (0.363, 0.0201) (681.0, 49.0)
60 (0.362, 0.0089) (676.0, 15.4)
150 (0.364, 0.0058) (680.4, 10.9)
300 (0.364, 0.0040) (678.7, 7.5)
750 (0.363, 0.0026) (678.5, 4.7)
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Energy and
Transportation Science Division, and used resources at the
Manufacturing Demonstration Facility, a DOE-EERE User
Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
References
[1] Tlusty J. Manufacturing Process and Equipment, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: pp. 463, 2000
[2] Taylor FW. On the Art of Cutting Metals, Transactions of the ASME, 1906;
28:31-248.
[3] Quiza R, Figueira L, Davim JP. Comparing statistical models and artificial
neural networks on predicting the tool wear in hard machining D2 AISI steel.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2008;
1;37(7-8):641-8.
[4] Alauddin M, El Baradie MA, Hashmi MS. Prediction of tool life in end
milling by response surface methodology. Journal of Materials Processing
[5] Usui E, Shirakashi T, Kitagawa T. Analytical prediction of cutting tool
wear. Wear. 1984; 100(1-3):129-51.
[6] Xie LJ, Schmidt J, Schmidt C, Biesinger F. 2D FEM estimate of tool wear
in turning operation. Wear. 2005; 258(10):1479-90.
[7] Quinto DT. Mechanical property and structure relationships in hard
coatings for cutting tools. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A:
Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films. 1988; May 6(3):2149-57.
[8] Dreiseitl S, Ohno-Machado L. Logistic regression and artificial neural
network classification models: a methodology review. Journal of Biomedical
[9] Mitchell TM. Machine learning. 1997. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw Hill.
1997;45:37:870-877.
[10] Nasrabadi NM. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Journal of
Electronic Imaging. 2007 Oct;16:4:049901.
[11] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O,
Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J. Scikit-
learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
2011;12(Oct):2825-30.
[12] Buitinck L, Louppe G, Blondel M, Pedregosa F, Mueller A, Grisel O,
Niculae V, Prettenhofer P, Gramfort A, Grobler J, Layton R. API design
for machine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project.
arXiv:2013:1309.0238.