Iterative Uncertainty Calibration for Modeling Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes Using Statistical Moment-Based Metric
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
Abstract Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has recently attracted attention due to its potential for batch/mass production of metal parts. This process, however, currently suffers from problems including low productivity, inconsistency in the properties of the printed parts, and defects such as lack of fusion and keyholing. Finite element (FE) modeling cannot accurately model the metal AM process and has a high computational cost. Empirical models based on experiments are time-consuming and expensive. This paper enhances a previously developed framework that takes advantages of both empirical and FE models. The validity and accuracy of the metamodel developed in the earlier framework depend on the initial assumption of parameter uncertainties. This causes a problem when the assumed uncertainties are far from the actual values. The proposed framework introduces an iterative calibration process to overcome this limitation. After comparing several calibration metrics, the second-order statistical moment-based metric (SMM) was chosen as the calibration metric in the improved framework. The framework is then applied to a four-variable porosity modeling problem. The obtained model is more accurate than using other approaches with only ten available experimental data points for calibration and validation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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