Proposition of a Geometric Complexity Model for Additive Manufacturing Process Based on CAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing techniques has great potential for manufacturing metal or polymer components with very high geometric complexity. This family of processes is now experiencing significant growth and is at the origin of intense research activity (optimization of topology, biomedical applications, etc.). One of the characteristics of this method is that the geometric complexity is free. The complexity of a CAD model is also a field of research. The basic idea is that the complexity of a component has implications in design and especially in manufacturing. Indeed, industrial competitiveness in the mechanical field generated the need to produce increasingly complex systems and parts (in terms of topology, functionality...). In the present work, we propose a complexity metric model based solely on the geometric information found in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file. The proposed metric is a multiplicative model. Our investigation is based on the analysis of different parts picked from our technical document database. The first results of our work demonstrate that our model is highly correlated to a part's evaluated complexity. Nonetheless, with its current quality, our model could help engineering teams identify high-complexity products as early as the design phase.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".