MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415597907 · doi:10.1115/detc2025-168795

Redundancy Analysis and Mitigation for Machine Learning-Based Process Monitoring of Additive Manufacturing

2025· article· W4415597907 on OpenAlexaff
Jiarui Xie, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Software deploymentTriple modular redundancyScalabilityData redundancyProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The deployment of machine learning (ML)-based process monitoring systems has significantly advanced additive manufacturing (AM) by enabling real-time defect detection, quality assessment, and process optimization. However, redundancy is a critical yet often overlooked challenge in the deployment and operation of ML-based AM process monitoring systems. Excessive redundancy leads to increased equipment costs, compromised model performance, and high computational requirements, posing barriers to industrial adoption. However, existing research lacks a unified definition of redundancy and a systematic framework for its evaluation and mitigation. This paper defines redundancy in ML-based AM process monitoring and categorizes it into sample-level, feature-level, and model-level redundancy. A comprehensive multi-level redundancy mitigation (MLRM) framework is proposed, incorporating advanced methods such as data registration, downscaling, cross-modality knowledge transfer, and model pruning to systematically reduce redundancy while improving model performance. The framework is validated through an ML-based in-situ defect detection case study for directed energy deposition (DED), demonstrating a 91% reduction in latency, a 47% decrease in error rate, and a 99.4% reduction in storage requirements. Additionally, the proposed approach lowers sensor costs and energy consumption, enabling a lightweight, cost-effective, and scalable monitoring system. By defining redundancy and introducing a structured mitigation framework, this study establishes redundancy analysis and mitigation as a key enabler of efficient ML-based process monitoring in production environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207