Exploring Machine Learning Tools for Enhancing Additive Manufacturing: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive Manufacturing (AM), a technique leveraging 3D modeling data to fabricate objects through layer-by-layer material deposition, has seen a surge in adoption across industries.This has, in turn, spurred rapid advancements in design, process, and manufacturing technologies integral to AM. Simultaneously, Machine Learning (ML), a subset of artificial intelligence centered on enabling self-improvement in computer programs, has carved its niche in this burgeoning field.This review provides an in-depth exploration of recent advancements in the application of ML within the AM framework.Specifically, the focus is placed on regression, classification, and clustering tasks integral to anomaly identification and parameter optimization in AM processes.A comparative analysis of the efficacy of various ML algorithms in executing these tasks forms the crux of this review.In light of these developments, the paper seeks to underscore the potential of ML as a viable tool in augmenting the capabilities of AM, thereby offering insights that could guide future research and development efforts in this interdisciplinary domain.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".