Machine Learning Assisted Prediction of the Manufacturability of Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laser-based powder bed fusion (LPBF) process is a type of additive manufacturing process which is able to produce complex metal geometries. The fast development of laser-based powder bed fusion process offers new opportunities to the industries. Comparing to the conventional manufacturing process, LPBF offers more freedom on the shape complexity and hierarchical complexity. Even though the LPBF process has many advantages, there are still many constraints on LPBF. At the current stage, LPBF process still has a very high threshold for industrial application. It requires designers to have extensive knowledge of LPBF process to make the design manufacturable. The need for the automatic manufacturability analysis in the early design stage is essential. In this paper, a novel approach on analyzing the manufacturability of LPBF process is introduced. The machine learning model is developed to predict the manufacturability of LPBF. The unique dataset is established as the training examples. The proposed method achieves very competitive accuracy on analyzing the manufacturability of LBPF. The limitation and future work will be discussed in the end.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".