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 emerging. 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 (TL). 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 featured 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 two flagship metal AM processes: laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and directed energy deposition (DED). The relatively mature LPBF is the source while the less developed DED is the target. 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".