Evaluation of Machine Learning Models for Enhancing Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) presents significant opportunities for advancing sustainability through optimized process control and material utilization. This research investigates the application of machine learning (ML) models to directly associate AM process parameters with sustainability metrics, which is often a challenge by experimental methods alone. Initially, experimental data are generated by systematically varying key AM parameters, layer height, infill density, infill pattern, build orientation, and number of shells. Subsequently, four ML models, Linear Regression, Decision Trees, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting, are trained and evaluated. Hyperparameter tuning is conducted using the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno with Box constraints (L-BFGS-B) algorithm, which demonstrates the superior computational efficiency compared to traditional approaches such as grid and random search. Among the models, Random Forest yields the highest predictive accuracy and lowest mean squared error across all target sustainability indicators: energy consumption, part weight, scrap weight, and production time. The results confirm the efficacy of ML in predicting sustainability outcomes when supported by robust experimental data. This research offers a scalable and computationally efficient approach to enhancing sustainability in AM processes and contributes to data-driven decision-making in sustainable manufacturing.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it