A Machine Learning Approach to Find Density Percentage Error Resulting by Infill Patterns in Additive Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents employing Machine Learning in predicting the error involved in the output density of the additive manufactured parts. Due to the fact that the density of a 3D part is related to the filled volume inside the body, the characteristics of infill lines become important. The existence of density percentage error is proven in previous studies, and it shows the deviation of actual infill density from the desired input density requested by the user. Since the amount of density error is different for various setups of infill parameters, being able to predict the density percentage error without going through the full calculation provides the base for infill setup optimization with the objective to minimize this error. A procedure is shown on how to work on the density error, by selecting a 2D infill pattern, recognizing the corresponding input parameters, and set up the error estimating. This study represents density percentage error prediction for a generic cubic model using a neural network. The developed results demonstrate the accuracy of the implemented neural network in predicting the density percentage error while the infill input parameters are changed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".