On the reusability of machine learning-based process monitoring systems for manufacturing digital twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced manufacturing is increasingly supported by machine learning (ML)-based digital twins (DTs) for real-time process monitoring and quality assurance. However, changes in physical domain configurations (e.g., machines, materials, and sensors) often cause domain shifts, limiting the reusability of existing DT components. Rebuilding DTs from scratch for each new configuration is costly and time-consuming. To address this challenge, we define DT reusability through three key criteria: FAIRness (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability), transferability, and transfer efficiency. We propose a framework to systematically support the reuse of ML-based process modeling components in DTs, consisting of three phases: FAIR compliance, transferability analysis, and domain adaptation. To enhance transfer efficiency, we introduce the domain-adversarial and decision distribution alignment (DADDA) network, which enables class-conditional alignment and mitigates overfitting through competing domain alignment objectives. A case study on vision-based process monitoring in additive manufacturing was conducted to validate the proposed framework. A FAIR-compliant database of existing DT components was developed, and the most suitable source domain for the designated target domain was identified through an evaluation of semantic and statistical similarity. Leveraging the selected source dataset, DADDA achieved 84 % accuracy after unsupervised pre-training and 96.9 % after supervised fine-tuning with only 210 labeled examples. Further validation on acoustic-based monitoring systems demonstrated the applicability of DADDA to various modalities. • Changes in physical domain configurations of a digital twin degrade process modeling performance. • Reusability is crucial for maintaining the effectiveness of digital twins over such changes. • Systematic reuse is achieved by ensuring FAIRness, transferability, and transfer efficiency. • Proposed unsupervised domain adaptation improves transfer efficiency while mitigating overfitting. • Validation on laser additive manufacturing shows high accuracy with minimal labeled data required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".