Review of Intelligence for Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing: Current Status and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), an enabler of Industry 4.0, recently opened limitless possibilities in various sectors covering personal, industrial, medical, aviation and even extra-terrestrial applications. Although significant research thrust is prevalent on this topic, a detailed review covering the impact, status, and prospects of artificial intelligence (AI) in the manufacturing sector has been ignored in the literature. Therefore, this review provides comprehensive information on smart mechanisms and systems emphasizing additive, subtractive and/or hybrid manufacturing processes in a collaborative, predictive, decisive, and intelligent environment. Relevant electronic databases were searched, and 248 articles were selected for qualitative synthesis. Our review suggests that significant improvements are required in connectivity, data sensing, and collection to enhance both subtractive and additive technologies, though the pervasive use of AI by machines and software helps to automate processes. An intelligent system is highly recommended in both conventional and non-conventional subtractive manufacturing (SM) methods to monitor and inspect the workpiece conditions for defect detection and to control the machining strategies in response to instantaneous output. Similarly, AM product quality can be improved through the online monitoring of melt pool and defect formation using suitable sensing devices followed by process control using machine learning (ML) algorithms. Challenges in implementing intelligent additive and subtractive manufacturing systems are also discussed in the article. The challenges comprise difficulty in self-optimizing CNC systems considering real-time material property and tool condition, defect detections by in-situ AM process monitoring, issues of overfitting and underfitting data in ML models and expensive and complicated set-ups in hybrid manufacturing 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".