Transferability Analysis of Data-Driven Additive Manufacturing Knowledge: A Case Study Between Powder Bed Fusion and Directed Energy Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data-driven research in Additive Manufacturing (AM) has gained significant success in recent years. This has led to a plethora of scientific literature to emerge. The knowledge in these works consists of AM and Artificial Intelligence (AI) contexts that haven’t been mined and formalized in an integrated way. Moreover, no tools or guidelines exist to support data-driven knowledge transfer from one context to another. As a result, data-driven solutions using specific AI techniques are being developed and validated only for specific AM process technologies. There is a potential to exploit the inherent similarities across various AM technologies and adapt the existing solutions from one process or problem to another using AI, such as Transfer Learning. We propose a three-step knowledge transferability analysis framework in AM to support data-driven AM knowledge transfer. As a prerequisite to transferability analysis, AM knowledge is featurized into identified knowledge components. The framework consists of pre-transfer, transfer, and post-transfer steps to accomplish knowledge transfer. A case study is conducted between flagship metal AM processes. Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) is the source of knowledge motivated by its relative matureness in applying AI over Directed Energy Deposition (DED), which drives the need for knowledge transfer as the less explored target process. We show successful transfer at different levels of the data-driven solution, including data representation, model architecture, and model parameters. The pipeline of AM knowledge transfer can be automated in the future to allow efficient cross-context or cross-process knowledge exchange.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".