A Review of Machine Learning Applications on Direct Energy Deposition Additive Manufacturing—A Trend Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review explores the evolution and current state of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) applications in direct energy deposition (DED) and wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) processes. A Python-based automated search script was developed to systematically retrieve relevant literature using the Crossref API, yielding around 370 papers published between 2010 and July 2025. The study identifies significant growth in ML-related DED research starting in 2020, with increasing adoption of advanced techniques such as deep learning, fuzzy logic, and hybrid physics-informed models. A year-by-year trend analysis is presented, and a comprehensive categorization of the literature is provided to highlight dominant application areas, including process optimization, real-time monitoring, defect detection, and melt pool prediction. Key challenges, such as limited closed-loop control, lack of generalization across systems, and insufficient modeling of deposition-location effects, are discussed. Finally, future research directions are outlined, emphasizing the need for integrated thermo-mechanical models, uncertainty quantification, and adaptive control strategies. This review serves as a resource for researchers aiming to advance intelligent control and predictive modeling in DED-based additive 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".