Applications of Machine Learning in Process Monitoring and Controls of L-PBF Additive Manufacturing: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main issues hindering the adoption of parts produced using laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) in safety-critical applications is the inconsistencies in quality levels. Furthermore, the complicated nature of the L-PBF process makes optimizing process parameters to reduce these defects experimentally challenging and computationally expensive. To address this issue, sensor-based monitoring of the L-PBF process has gained increasing attention in recent years. Moreover, integrating machine learning (ML) techniques to analyze the collected sensor data has significantly improved the defect detection process aiming to apply online control. This article provides a comprehensive review of the latest applications of ML for in situ monitoring and control of the L-PBF process. First, the main L-PBF process signatures are described, and the suitable sensor and specifications that can monitor each signature are reviewed. Next, the most common ML learning approaches and algorithms employed in L-PBFs are summarized. Then, an extensive comparison of the different ML algorithms used for defect detection in the L-PBF process is presented. The article then describes the ultimate goal of applying ML algorithms for in situ sensors, which is closing the loop and taking online corrective actions. Finally, some current challenges and ideas for future work are also described to provide a perspective on the future directions for research dealing with using ML applications for defect detection and control for the L-PBF processes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it