Steel heat treatment is governed by coupled heat transfer, diffusion, phase transformation, and stress development, yet industrial practice still relies on empirical diagrams and trial-and-error. This review critically examines machine learning and advanced simulation as design tools for that practice, spanning physics-based simulation, supervised learning, computer vision, physics-informed learning, surrogate modeling, inverse design, and digital twins. Quenching and tempering, thermochemical carburizing, localized induction and laser processing, press hardening, and additive-manufacturing post-processing are analyzed as separate mechanism-specific families rather than pooled as one process class. The evidence base is uneven: most studies rely on simulation or retrospective internal validation, only isolated reports include prospective component-scale tests, and none documents sustained closed-loop production control. Tree ensembles and kernel methods are strong baselines for the small, structured datasets typical of heat-treatment research, but no model family is universally superior. Validation design matters more than architecture: in one vision study, yield-strength R 2 rose from 0.43 under specimen-grouped validation to 0.97 under a leaky image split, and equation-generated targets merely emulate encoded correlations rather than validate physics. Hybrid models improve data efficiency and physical consistency, but evidence for extrapolation and plant transfer remains limited. A six-level validation hierarchy is proposed to separate random-holdout accuracy from grouped, external, temporal, prospective, and closed-loop evidence. Critical gaps persist in multimodal data integration, uncertainty quantification, causal process understanding, benchmarks, and safety-constrained control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alabi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: