A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Methods for Computational Modeling of the Selective Laser Melting Additive Manufacturing Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective laser melting (SLM) is a metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) technique. Many factors contribute to the output quality of SLM, particularly the machine and material parameters. Analysis of the parameters’ effects is critical, but using traditional experimental and numerical simulation can be expensive and time-consuming. This paper provides a framework to analyze the sensitivity and uncertainty in SLM input and output parameters, which can then be used to find the optimum parameters. The proposed data-driven approach combines machine learning algorithms with high-fidelity numerical simulations to study the SLM process more efficiently. We have considered laser speed, hatch spacing, layer thickness, Young modulus, and Poisson ratio as input variables, while the output variables are numerical predicted normal strains in the building part. A surrogate model was constructed with a deep neural network (DNN) or polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) to generate a response surface between the SLM output and the input variables. The surrogate model and the sensitivity analysis found that all five parameters were important in the process. The surrogate model was combined with non-intrusive optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithms (GA), differential evolution (DE), and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to perform an inverse analysis and find the optimal parameters for the SLM process. Of the three algorithms, the PSO performed well, and the DNN model was found to be the most efficient surrogate model compared to the PCE.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".