Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Computational, Data-Driven, and Physics-Informed Machine Learning Approaches for Microstructure Modeling in Metal Additive Manufacturing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that physics-informed machine learning, especially physics-informed neural networks, is the paradigm that bridges physics-based and data-driven modeling for microstructure prediction in metal additive manufacturing.

desk verdict Useful map of the PIML-for-AM literature, but a confirmed citation mismatch and an unverified AI-assisted synthesis make the review untrustworthy until audited. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01424 v1 pith:FTTQ7PW2 submitted 2025-05-02 cs.LG

D. Patel , R. Sharma , Y.B. Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords metaladditivemanufacturingmicrostructurescomputationalmodelingdata-drivenphysics-informedmachinelearningneuralnetworksprocess-microstructure-propertyrelationshipslaserpowderbedfusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Metal additive manufacturing creates components by rapid melting and solidification, and the resulting microstructures—grain size, texture, phase distribution, and porosity—determine whether a part is safe to use. This review argues that none of the existing modeling strategies alone can predict those microstructures reliably: experimental characterization is the ground truth but is expensive and indirect, physics-based simulations (phase-field, cellular automata, kinetic Monte Carlo) are mechanistically sound but computationally costly and limited in scale, and pure machine learning is fast but opaque and fragile outside its training distribution. The review's central claim is that physics-informed machine learning, particularly physics-informed neural networks, is the emerging bridge: by encoding governing equations such as heat transfer and solidification laws directly into the neural-network loss, PIML can deliver physically consistent predictions with far less data. If the paper is right, the field should move toward PIML-based hybrid frameworks—coupling neural networks with thermal, melt-pool, and grain-growth models—for site-specific, microstructure-aware process control. The review also identifies the open problems that stand in the way: data scarcity, multi-scale coupling, training stability, and uncertainty quantification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the physics-informed neural network's augmented loss function, written in the paper as $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PDE}} + \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{BC}} + \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{IC}}$, which penalizes deviations from governing partial differential equations alongside boundary and initial conditions. This soft-constraint design is what turns a black-box regressor into a model that must respect physical laws, and together with automatic differentiation it enables mesh-free training and unsupervised operation when labeled data is scarce. The review treats hybrid couplings—PINN-based thermal models driving cellular automata grain simulations, physics-constrained networks combined with Bayesian optimization, and physics-embedded graph networks—as the working form of this machinery for microstructure prediction.

What would settle it

The central claim would be falsified by a controlled benchmark on a fixed AM alloy (for example LPBF Ti-6Al-4V) in which a PINN with thermal and solidification PDE losses and a black-box CNN or LSTM are trained on the same small dataset and tested on an unseen combination of laser power and scan speed: if the PINN does not match or beat the black-box model in extrapolation error while using no more data, the paper's claims of improved generalizability and data efficiency fail. A second, cheaper falsifier is bibliographic: if a systematic audit finds that most works cited as PIML microstructure successes do not actually embed physics into the loss, the survey's central narrative loses its evidentiary base.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a convergence claim: the trajectory of microstructure modeling in metal AM points toward physics-informed machine learning, with PINNs as the central example. It assembles evidence that PINNs can predict 3D temperature fields from limited labeled data, infer melt-pool behavior without directly solving the Navier-Stokes equations, and be coupled to cellular automata or phase-field models to predict grain structure, and it concludes that PIML-based hybrid approaches are the route to predictive, scalable, and physically consistent microstructure modeling. The review's stated conclusion is that PIML bridges the gap between physics-based and data-driven modeling, offering improved generalizability, reduced data dependence, and enhanced interpretability.

Load-bearing premise

The review's central recommendation assumes that its survey of the literature accurately represents what the cited papers actually did; that assumption is not secure, because at least one citation, [40], is a soil-chemistry paper on humic substances that the text cites as a 3D thermal-fluid plus cellular-automata model of laser-directed energy deposition melt-pool convection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, microstructure prediction no longer requires either massive labeled datasets or full high-fidelity simulation: PINNs can be trained from sparse data with PDE constraints acting as a regularizer.
  • Transfer learning becomes a practical route to cross-process generalization, so a model trained on one AM process (such as LPBF) can be fine-tuned for another (such as DED) instead of being retrained from scratch.
  • Online, physics-informed models updated with real-time thermal imaging could enable adaptive control of grain structure during a build, moving quality assurance from post-build inspection to in-process steering.
  • Bayesian and probabilistic PINNs would supply uncertainty estimates on predicted microstructures, which is what qualification and certification of safety-critical AM parts ultimately require.
  • Hybrid PINN-plus-cellular-automata and PINN-plus-phase-field frameworks become practical surrogates for exploring process parameter space before expensive experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the authors leave implicit: if PIML's advantage is data efficiency plus physical consistency, then the community needs standardized, open benchmark problems—fixed alloys, fixed process windows, fixed PDE loss terms—so that competing PINN architectures can be compared on extrapolation rather than on curated datasets.
  • The disclosed use of AI-assisted summarization in the review itself introduces a testable hazard: some citation-to-claim mappings may not survive a spot check, so the review's specific attributions are better treated as pointers to verify than as established facts.
  • A concrete extension of the argument: the same PINN loss machinery used for temperature and melt-pool prediction could be turned into an inverse design tool that takes a target grain morphology as input and outputs the laser power, scan speed, and hatch spacing needed to produce it.
  • If online PINNs mature, their value extends beyond prediction: they could serve as the surrogate inside a digital-twin control loop, making the review's 'microstructure-aware process control' concrete.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a literature review of modeling strategies for microstructure prediction in metal additive manufacturing, covering experimental characterization, physics-based simulation methods (phase-field, cellular automata, kinetic Monte Carlo), data-driven machine learning, and physics-informed machine learning (PIML) with emphasis on physics-informed neural networks (PINNs). It synthesizes recent work on thermal prediction, melt pool dynamics, and microstructure applications, identifies challenges such as data scarcity, multi-scale coupling, and uncertainty quantification, and concludes that PIML-based hybrid approaches are promising for scalable, physically consistent microstructure modeling.

Significance. If the conclusions are accepted, the review would support a shift toward embedding physical laws in neural network models for metal AM, and it usefully organizes a broad and heterogeneous literature. The paper's strengths are its breadth, the structured tables that summarize methods and applications, and its explicit discussion of limitations and open problems. Because this is a synthesis rather than a new derivation or experiment, its value depends entirely on the accuracy of its citation-to-claim mapping; the confirmed citation error and the disclosed reliance on AI-assisted summarization without a described verification step put that dependence in question.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Reference [40]] The sentence "Likewise, Liu et al. [40] applied a 3D thermal-fluid and CA model in L-DED to highlight how melt pool convection, driven by Marangoni and buoyancy forces, shapes grain morphology" cites Reference [40], which is D. Liu et al., "Characterizing Humic Substances from Native Halophyte Soils by Fluorescence Spectroscopy Combined with Parallel Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis," Sustainability 12(23):9787, 2020. This source cannot support the stated modeling claim. Since a review's central value is its reliable mapping of claims to sources, this error undermines confidence in the surrounding discussion and requires a systematic audit of every citation-to-claim pairing, not only a one-line correction.
  2. [Section 1.3 and throughout] The methods paragraph states that NotebookLM, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity AI were used to extract, summarize, and structure the literature, but it does not describe any human verification of the resulting summaries against the original sources. Given the confirmed citation mismatch in Section 2.2, the absence of a verification protocol means that other attributions, particularly the compact claims in Tables 5-10, may be similarly unreliable. The authors should either document the verification process or independently re-check all claims attributed to specific references.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Tables 9-10] The strongest Section 7 claim---that PINNs "offer improved generalizability, reduced data dependence, and enhanced interpretability"---is presented as established, but the review's own evidence is mostly about temperature fields and melt pool dimensions. Table 9 lists thermal and melt pool applications, while Table 10 contains only three microstructure-related entries, one of which is a phase-field surrogate rather than a direct microstructure prediction. The authors should distinguish demonstrated results for thermal and melt pool PINNs from extrapolated promise for microstructure modeling, or add comparative studies that directly support the generalizability and data-efficiency claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, displayed equation] The displayed PINN loss function is corrupted by character-encoding errors and shows undefined subscripts; the equation should be repaired and the notation (e.g., residual terms for the PDE, boundary conditions, and initial conditions) defined explicitly.
  2. [Section 5.2] The phrase "data-scare environment" should read "data-scarce environment."
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence beginning "KMC modeling has become a key approach for simulating solidification phenomena in metal AM, particularly for predicting microstructure evolution at the mesoscale capturing 69" is grammatically incomplete; the trailing "capturing 69" appears to be a citation artifact and the sentence should be rewritten.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [141] contains a duplicated author string ("A. D. J. Ameya D. Jagtap") and similar formatting glitches appear elsewhere in the reference list; these should be cleaned up.
  5. [Section 1.3] The sentence "Perplexity AI were also consulted" should read "Perplexity AI was also consulted" for subject-verb agreement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; minor non-load-bearing self-citation by authors in support of PIML; citation mismatch and AI-use disclosure are correctness, not circularity.

  1. other [Section 5.3 and Table 9, with Refs. [131], [134], [135]; also Section 2.2, Fig. 2 from Ref. [2]]
    "This capability extends to predicting complex behaviors like melt pool dynamics under the influence of Argon gas-driven shear flows, without using any training data on velocity and pressure, thereby avoiding the need to directly solve the notoriously challenging nonlinear Navier–Stokes equations 131."

    The review's favorable PIML conclusion leans partly on the authors' own prior works: [131] is cited for the claim that PINNs can infer Reynolds/Peclet numbers and melt-pool dynamics under Argon-gas shear without velocity/pressure training data, [134] and [135] appear in Table 9 as PINN temperature/melt-pool examples, and [2] provides the multiphysics melt-pool framework in Fig. 2. Since these are the same group advocating PIML, citing them as evidence is a minor self-referential pattern. It is not derivation-level circularity: the central claim is carried by many independent external references (Raissi et al. 2019; Cao et al. 2023; Liao et al. 2023; Kats et al. 2022; Tang et al. 2024), so removing the self-citations would not change the conclusion.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not a derivation: there are no fitted parameters, no equations whose outputs equal their inputs, and no 'prediction' that is merely a renamed fit. The central claim (Section 7: 'PIML, particularly PINNs, has emerged as a powerful paradigm that bridges the gap between physics-based modeling and data-driven modeling') is a literature synthesis. It is supported by a broad external literature, including Raissi et al. (2019), Cao et al. (2023), Liao et al. (2023), Kats et al. (2022), Tang et al. (2024), and others, so the conclusion does not reduce to the authors' own prior work. The only noteworthy pattern is that four references ([2], [131], [134], [135]) are authored by the same group and are used to illustrate PIML capabilities (e.g., Argon-driven melt-pool inference in Section 5.3 and Table 9). These are not load-bearing: removing them would not collapse the assessment. That warrants the rubric's level-2 'minor self-citation' observation rather than a finding of derivation-level circularity. Separate concerns—none circular—include the confirmed citation mismatch at Section 2.2 (Ref. [40] is a soil humic-substances paper, not a 3D thermal-fluid/CA L-DED model) and the Section 1.3 disclosure that NotebookLM, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity were used to summarize and structure the literature without a described human verification step. These are citation-integrity/reliability issues for the literature mapping and should be audited, but they do not make the review's reasoning circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities: the paper is a review and introduces no new model, quantity, or data. The axioms listed are the background assumptions the review's conclusions rely on, chiefly the representativeness of the literature sample and the reliability of AI-assisted summarization.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The surveyed literature (Google Scholar and Scopus, 2018-2024) is representative of the state of the art in AM microstructure modeling.
    Section 1.3 describes the selection criteria; all conclusions about PIML's promise and the limitations of other methods rest on this sample being representative.
  • ad hoc to paper AI-assisted summarization (NotebookLM, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity) preserved the meaning of the cited sources.
    Section 1.3 discloses the use of these tools; the citation error at reference [40] suggests this assumption is not fully reliable.
  • domain assumption The classical G/R and G×R solidification criteria correctly connect thermal conditions to microstructure morphology (columnar vs equiaxed, grain refinement).
    Section 2.1 uses these criteria to explain microstructure formation; the review depends on this standard metallurgical theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computational, Data-Driven, and Physics-Informed Machine Learning Approaches for Microstructure Modeling in Metal Additive Manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTTQ7PW2

@misc{pith2026250501424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computational, Data-Driven, and Physics-Informed Machine Learning Approaches for Microstructure Modeling in Metal Additive Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTTQ7PW2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01424}
}
read the original abstract

Metal additive manufacturing enables unprecedented design freedom and the production of customized, complex components. However, the rapid melting and solidification dynamics inherent to metal AM processes generate heterogeneous, non-equilibrium microstructures that significantly impact mechanical properties and subsequent functionality. Predicting microstructure and its evolution across spatial and temporal scales remains a central challenge for process optimization and defect mitigation. While conventional experimental techniques and physics-based simulations provide a physical foundation and valuable insights, they face critical limitations. In contrast, data-driven machine learning offers an alternative prediction approach and powerful pattern recognition but often operate as black-box, lacking generalizability and physical consistency. To overcome these limitations, physics-informed machine learning, including physics-informed neural networks, has emerged as a promising paradigm by embedding governing physical laws into neural network architectures, thereby enhancing accuracy, transparency, data efficiency, and extrapolation capabilities. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of modeling strategies for microstructure prediction in metal AM. The strengths and limitations of experimental, computational, and data-driven methods are analyzed in depth, and highlight recent advances in hybrid PIML frameworks that integrate physical knowledge with ML. Key challenges, such as data scarcity, multi-scale coupling, and uncertainty quantification, are discussed alongside future directions. Ultimately, this assessment underscores the importance of PIML-based hybrid approaches in enabling predictive, scalable, and physically consistent microstructure modeling for site-specific, microstructure-aware process control and the reliable production of high-performance AM components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , reformulate the phase-field problem of microstructure evolution in AM as an unsupervised machine learning task on a graph, significantly accelerating simulations. Additionally, RNNs and LSTM networks, like GrainNN 101 and GrainGNN 104, have been used to model the tem…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compressing the Validation Bottleneck: An Agentic Self-Driving Lab for Scientific Discovery

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A single agent is proposed to shrink self-driving-lab validation cost by prior-aware Bayesian DOE and uncertainty-gated cheap-to-expensive measurement surrogates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    P. W. Liu, Y. Z. Ji, Z. Wa ng, C. L. Qiu, A. A. Antonysamy, L. Q. Chen, X. Y. Cui, and L. Chen, ‘Investigation on evolution mechanisms of site-specific grain structures during metal additive manufacturing’, J Mater Process Technol, vol. 257, pp. 191–202, Jul. 2018

    2018

  2. [1]

    Karimzadeh, D

    M. Karimzadeh, D. Basvoju, A. Vakans ki, I. Charit, F. Xu, and X. Zhang, ‘Machine Learning for Additive Manufacturing of Functio nally Graded Materials’, Materials, vol. 17, no. 15, p. 3673, Jul. 2024

    2024

  3. [2]

    Sharma and Y

    R. Sharma and Y. B. Guo, ‘Computati onal modeling and physic s-informed machine learning of metal additive manufacturing: stat e-of-the-art and future perspective’, in Annual Review of Heat Transfer, vol. 24, no. 1, Begell House Inc., 2022, pp. 303–337

    2022

  4. [3]

    DebRoy, H

    T. DebRoy, H. L. Wei, J. S. Zuback, T. M ukherjee, J. W. Elmer, J. O. Milewski, A. M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, and W. Zh ang, ‘Additive manufacturing of metallic components – Process, structure and propertie s’, Progress in Materials Science, vol. 92. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 112–224, 01-Mar-2018

    2018

  5. [4]

    Zhang, D

    D. Zhang, D. Qiu, M. A. Gi bson, Y. Zheng, H. L. Fraser, D. H. StJohn, and M. A. Easton, ‘Additive manufacturing of ultrafine-grained high-strength titanium alloys’, Nature, vol. 576, no. 7785, pp. 91–95, Dec. 2019

    2019

  6. [5]

    M. M. Kirka, K. A. Unocic, N. Raghava n, F. Medina, R. R. Dehoff, and S. S. Babu, ‘Microstructure Development in Electron Beam-Melted Inconel 718 and Associated Tensile Properties’, JOM, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1012–1020, Mar. 2016

    2016

  7. [6]

    Ghosh, J

    S. Ghosh, J. Zollinger, M. Zaloznik, D. Banerjee, C. K. Newman, and R. Arroyave, ‘Modeling of hierarchical solidification microstructures in metal a dditive manufacturing: Challenges and opportunities’, Addit Manuf, vol. 78, p. 103845, Sep. 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Zinovieva, A

    O. Zinovieva, A. Zinoviev, and V. Plos hikhin, ‘Three-dimensional modeling of the microstructure evolution during metal additi ve manufacturing’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 141, pp. 207–220, Jan. 2018

    2018

Show all 147 references
  1. [8]

    S. M. Hashemi, S. Parvizi, H. Baghbanijavid, A. T. L. Tan, M. Nematollahi, A. Ramazani, N. X. Fang, and M. Elahinia, ‘Computational modelling of process–structure–property– performance relationships in metal additive manufacturing: a review’, International Materials Reviews, v...

    2022

  2. [9]

    C. Li, Z. Y. Liu, X. Y. Fang, and Y. B. Guo, ‘Residual Stress in Metal Additive Manufacturing’, Procedia CIRP, vol. 71, pp. 348–353, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    Körner, M

    C. Körner, M. Markl, and J. A. Koepf, ‘Modeling and Simulati on of Microstructure Evolution for Additive Manufacturing of Metals: A Critical Review’, Metall Mater Trans A Phys Metall Mater Sci, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 4970–4983, Oct. 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Faegh, S

    M. Faegh, S. Ghungrad, J. P. Oliveira, P. Rao, and A. Haghighi, ‘A review on physics- informed machine learning for process-structure-property modeling in additive manufacturing’, J Manuf Process, vol. 133, pp. 524–555, Jan. 2025

    2025

  5. [12]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. S. Hong, D. Ye, K. Zhu, and J. Y. H. Fuh, ‘Extraction and evaluation of melt pool, plume and spatter information for powder-bed fusion AM process monitoring’, Mater Des, vol. 156, pp. 458–469, Oct. 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    B. D. Bevans, A. Carrington, A. Riensche, A. Tenequer, C. Barrett, H. (Scott) Halliday, R. Srinivasan, K. D. Cole, and P. Rao, ‘Digital twins for rapid in-situ qualification of part quality in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing’, Addit Manuf, vol. 93, Aug. 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    X. Cao, C. Duan, X. Luo, S. Zheng, X. Hao, D. Shang, and Z. Zhang, ‘Physics-informed machine learning approach for molten pool morphology prediction and process evaluation in directed energy deposition of 12CrNi2 alloy steel’, J Manuf Process, vol. 119, pp. 806– 826, Jun. 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    H. Mu, F. He, L. Yuan, P. Commins, H. Wang, and Z. Pan, ‘Toward a smart wire arc additive manufacturing system : A review on current develo pments and a framework of digital twin’, J Manuf Syst, vol. 67, pp. 174–189, Apr. 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Y. Cai, J. Xiong, H. Chen, and G. Zhang, ‘A review of in-situ monitoring and process control system in metal-based laser additive manufacturing’, J Ma nuf Syst, vol. 70, pp. 309–326, Oct. 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Herzog, M

    T. Herzog, M. Brandt, A. Trinchi, A. Sola, and A. Molo tnikov, ‘Process monitoring and machine learning for defect detection in laser-based metal additive manufacturing’, J Intell Manuf, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1407–1437, Apr. 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Bayat, O

    M. Bayat, O. Zinovieva, F. Ferrari, C. Ay as, M. Langelaar, J. Spangenberg, R. Salajeghe, K. Poulios, S. Mohanty, O. Sigmund, and J. Hattel, ‘Holistic computational design within additive manufacturing through topology optimization combined with multiphysics multi- scale mater...

    2023

  12. [19]

    W. L. Ng, G. L. Goh, G. D. Goh, J. S. J. Ten, and W. Y. Yeong, ‘Progress and Opportunities for Machine Learning in Materials and Pro cesses of Additive Manuf acturing’, Advanced Materials, vol. 36, no. 34, Aug. 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    T. Shen, B. Li, J. Zhang, and F. Xuan, ‘M ulti-source information fusion for enhanced in- process quality monitoring of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing’, Addit Manuf, vol. 96, p. 104575, Sep. 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Kibrete, T

    F. Kibrete, T. Trzepieci ński, H. S. Gebremedhen, and D. E. Woldemichael, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Mechanical Properties of Composite Materials’, Journal of Composites Science, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 364, Sep. 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    S. V. Chernyshikhin, E. L. Dzidziguri, L. V. Fedorenko, A. A. Gromov, K. B. Larionov, M. V. Lyange, N. A. Kharit onova, E. A. Naumova, D. Y. Oz herelkov, I. A. Pelevin, and S. O. Rogachev, ‘Structure and Mechanical Properties of Al–Ce–Fe Alloy Synthesized by LPBF Method’, Meta...

    2024

  16. [23]

    Huang, M

    Y. Huang, M. Ansari, H. As gari, M. H. Farshidianfar, D. Sarker, M. B. Khamesee, and E. Toyserkani, ‘Rapid predicti on of real-time thermal char acteristics, solidification parameters and microstructure in laser directed energy deposition (powder-fed additive manufacturing)’, ...

    2019

  17. [24]

    Z. Wang, T. A. Palmer, and A. M. B eese, ‘Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and tensile prope rties of austenitic stainles s steel 304L made by directed energy deposition additive manufacturing’, Acta Mater, vol. 110, pp. 226–235, May 2016

    2016

  18. [25]

    Akbari and R

    M. Akbari and R. Kovacevic, ‘An inve stigation on mechanical and microstructural properties of 316LSi parts fabricated by a r obotized laser/wire di rect metal deposition system’, Addit Manuf, vol. 23, pp. 487–497, Oct. 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Yoshioka and M

    J. Yoshioka and M. Eshraghi, ‘Tempor al evolution of temperature gradient and solidification rate in lase r powder bed fusion additive manufacturing’, Heat and Mass Transfer/Waerme- und Stoffuebertragung, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 1155–1166, Jul. 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    J. K. Chaurasia, A. N. Jinoop, P. P, C. P. Paul, K. S. Bindra, and S. Bontha, ‘Study of melt pool geometry and solidification microstructu re during laser surface melting of Inconel 625 alloy’, Optik (Stuttg), vol. 246, Nov. 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Tourret, R

    D. Tourret, R. Tavakoli, A. D. Boccardo, A. K. Boukellal, M. Li, and J. Molina-Aldareguia, ‘Emergence of rapid solidification microst ructure in additive manufacturing of a Magnesium alloy’, Model Simul Mat Sci Eng, vol. 32, no. 5, Jul. 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    T. Wang, Y. Y. Zhu, S. Q. Zhang, H. B. Tang, and H. M. Wa ng, ‘Grain morphology evolution behavior of titanium alloy components during laser melting deposition additive manufacturing’, J Alloys Compd, vol. 632, pp. 505–513, May 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    Haase, J

    C. Haase, J. Bültmann, J. Hof, S. Ziegler, S. Bremen, C. Hinke, A. Schwedt, U. Prahl, and W. Bleck, ‘Exploiting process-related advant ages of selective laser melting for the production of high-manganese steel’, Materials, vol. 10, no. 1, 2017

    2017

  24. [31]

    L. L. Parimi, G. Ravi, D. Clark, and M. M. Attallah, ‘Microstructural and texture development in direct laser fabricated IN718’, Mater Charact, vol. 89, pp. 102–111, Mar. 2014

    2014

  25. [32]

    Zinovieva, V

    O. Zinovieva, V. Romanova, E. Dymnich, A. Zinoviev, and R. Balokhonov, ‘A Review of Computational Approaches to the Microstr ucture-Informed Mechanical Modelling of Metals Produced by Powder Bed Fusion Additi ve Manufacturing’, Materials, vol. 16, no

  26. [33]

    Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 01-Oct-2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Chandra, J

    S. Chandra, J. Radhakrishnan, S. Huang, S. Wei, and U. Ramamurt y, ‘Solidification in metal additive manufacturing: challenges, solutions, and opportunities’, Prog Mater Sci, p. 101361, Feb. 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    Mukherjee, J

    T. Mukherjee, J. W. Elmer, H. L. Wei, T. J. Lienert, W. Zhang, S. Kou, and T. DebRoy, ‘Control of grain structure, phases, and defects in additive manufacturing of high- performance metallic components’, Progress in Materials Science, vol. 138. Elsevier Ltd, 01-Sep-2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    H. Gu, Y. Fu, C. Wei, L. Li, L. Qian, W. Zhou, Y. Li, and X. Ren, ‘The impact of thermocapillary on equiaxed/columnar micros tructure evolution in laser powder bed fusion: A high-fidelity ray-tracing based fin ite volume and cellular automaton study’, J Mater Process Technol, ...

    2024

  30. [37]

    J. Yang, L. M. Schlenger, M. H. Nasab, S. Van Petegem, F. Marone , R. E. Logé, and C. Leinenbach, ‘Experimental quantification of inward Marangoni convection and its impact Page 29 of 36 on keyhole threshold in laser powder bed fusi on of stainless steel’, Addit Manuf, vol. 84...

    2024

  31. [38]

    Xiong, Z

    F. Xiong, Z. Gan, J. Chen, and Y. Lian, ‘E valuate the effect of melt pool convection on grain structure of IN625 in la ser melting process using experi mentally validated process- structure modeling’, J Mater Process Technol, vol. 303, May 2022

    2022

  32. [39]

    Ahsan, J

    F. Ahsan, J. Razmi, and L. Ladani, ‘Globa l local modeling of melt pool dynamics and bead formation in laser bed powder fusion additive manufacturing using a multi-physics thermo- fluid simulation’, Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1275–1285, Dec. 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    D. Liu, H. Yu, F. Yang, L. Liu, H. Gao, and B. Cui, ‘Cha racterizing Humic Substances from Native Halophyte Soils by Fluorescence Spectroscopy Combined with Parallel Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 23, p. 9787, Nov. 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    W. E. Alphonso, M. Baier, S. Carmignato, J. H. Hattel, and M. Bayat, ‘On the possibility of doing reduced order, thermo-fluid model ling of laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) – Assessment of the importance of recoil pressu re and surface tensi on’, J Manuf Process, vol. 94, pp. 5...

    2023

  35. [43]

    K. Dai, X. He, D. Kong, and C. Dong, ‘Mul ti-physical field simulation to yield defect-free IN718 alloy fabricated by laser powder be d fusion’, Mater Lett, vol. 355, p. 135437, Jan. 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Bayat, R

    M. Bayat, R. Rothfelder, K. Schwarz kopf, A. Zinoviev, O. Zinovieva, C. Spurk, M. Hummel, A. Olowinsky, F. Beckmann, J. Mo osmann, M. Schmidt, and J. H. Hattel, ‘Exploring spatial beam shaping in laser powder bed fusion: High-fidelity simulation and in-situ monitoring’, Addit ...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Bidare, I

    P. Bidare, I. Bitharas, R. M. Ward, M. M. Attallah, and A. J. M oore, ‘Laser powder bed fusion in high-pressure atmospheres’, Intern ational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 99, no. 1–4, pp. 543–555, Oct. 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    A. M. Kiss, A. Y. Fong, N. P. Calta, V. Thampy, A. A. Martin, P. J. Depond, J. Wang, M. J. Matthews, R. T. Ott, C. J. Tassone, K. H. Stone, M. J. Kramer, A. van Buuren, M. F. Toney, and J. Nelson Weker, ‘Laser-Induced Keyhole Defect Dynamics during Metal Additive Manufacturing...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Z. Yu, Y. Zheng, J. Chen, C. Wu, J. Xu, H. Lu, and C. Yu, ‘Effect of laser remelting processing on microstructure and mechanical pr operties of 17-4 PH stainless steel during laser direct metal deposition’, J Mater Process Technol, vol. 284, Oct. 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Li and Y

    X. Li and Y. Liu, ‘Effect of laser remelt ing on printability, microstructure and mechanical performance of Al-Mg-Sc-Zr alloy produced by laser powder bed fusion’, J Alloys Compd, vol. 963, Nov. 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    H. Xiao, Y. Chen, M. Liu, Y. Zhou, C. D u, and W. Zhang, ‘Influence of Laser Additive Manufacturing and Laser Polishing on Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of High- Strength Maraging Steel Metal Materials’, Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 20, p. 10340, Oct. 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    F. Xue, X. Cui, L. Zheng, M. Li, and X. Fang, ‘Effects of laser remelting on microstructure and shear properties of bonding interface in hybrid metal additive manufacturing process’, Page 30 of 36 International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 119, no. 1–2, p...

    2022

  43. [51]

    T. M. Rodgers, D. Moser, F. Abdeljawad, O. D. U. Jackson, J. D. Carroll, B. H. Jared, D. S. Bolintineanu, J. A. Mitchell, and J. D. Madison, ‘Simulation of powder bed metal additive manufacturing microstructures with coupled finite di fference-Monte Carlo method’, Addit Manuf,...

    2021

  44. [52]

    J. Song, Q. Tang, Q. Feng, Q. Han, S. Ma, H. Chen, F. Guo, and R. Setchi, ‘Effect of remelting processes on the microstructure and mechanical behaviours of 18Ni-300 maraging steel manufactured by selective la ser melting’, Mater Charact, vol. 184, Feb. 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    C. Du, Y. Zhao, Z. Xu, and Y. Sun, ‘Influe nce of In Situ Laser Polishing on Pore Defects and Mechanical Properties of IN718 Alloy Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting’, J Mater Eng Perform, Jun. 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Biswas, S

    S. Biswas, S. L. N. Dhulipala, P. Germa n, A. D. Lindsay, M. D. Eklund, D. Hermawan, H. Oh, W. Jiang, and A. M. Jokisaari, ‘Mu ltiscale and Machine Learning Modeling for Additive Manufacturing’, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    T. Shen, B. Li, J. Zhang, and F. Xuan, ‘Integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) for predicting tensile properties of additively manufactured defect-free single- phase high-entropy alloy’, Virtual Phys Prototyp, vol. 20, no. 1, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Tan and A

    W. Tan and A. Spear, ‘Multiphysics Modeling Framework to Predict Process- Microstructure-Property Relationship in Fusion-Based Metal Additive Manufacturing’, Acc Mater Res, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 10–21, Jan. 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Deshmukh, A

    K. Deshmukh, A. Riensche, B. Bevans, R. J. Lane, K. Snyder, H. (Scott) Halliday, C. B. Williams, R. Mirzaeifar, and P. Rao, ‘Effect of processing parameters and thermal history on microstructure evolution and functional properties in laser powder bed fusion of 316L’, Mater Des...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Promoppatum, R

    P. Promoppatum, R. Onler, and S.-C. Yao, ‘N umerical and experimental investigations of micro and macro characteristics of direct metal laser sintered Ti-6Al-4V products’, J Mater Process Technol, vol. 240, pp. 262–273, Feb. 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Wahlquist and A

    S. Wahlquist and A. Ali, ‘Roles of M odeling and Artificial Intelligence in LPBF Metal Print Defect Detection: Critical Review’, Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 8534, Sep. 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    A. R. Durmaz, M. Müller, B. Lei, A. Thomas , D. Britz, E. A. Holm, C. Eberl, F. Mücklich, and P. Gumbsch, ‘A deep learning approach for complex microstructure inference’, Nat Commun, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 6272, Nov. 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    B. C. Whitney, A. G. Spangenberger, T. M. Rodgers, and D. A. Lados, ‘Part-scale microstructure prediction for laser powde r bed fusion Ti-6Al-4V using a hybrid mechanistic and machine learning model’, Addit Manuf, vol. 94, Aug. 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Y. Di, Z. Zheng, S. Pang, J. Li, and Y. Zhong, ‘Dimension Prediction and Microstructure Study of Wire Arc Additive Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel Based on Artificial Neural Network and Finite Element Simulation’, Micromachines (Basel), vol. 15, no. 5, May 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Chandra, C

    S. Chandra, C. Wang, S. B. Tor, U. Ramamurty, and X. Tan, ‘Powder-size driven facile microstructure control in powder-fusion meta l additive manufacturing processes’, Nat Commun, vol. 15, no. 1, Dec. 2024. Page 31 of 36

    2024

  56. [64]

    L. Chen, B. Richter, X. Zhang, K. B. Bert sch, D. J. Thoma, and F. E. Pfefferkorn, ‘Effect of laser polishing on the microstructure and mechanical properties of stainless steel 316L fabricated by laser powder bed fusion’, Mate rials Science and Engi neering: A, vol. 802, Jan. 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Barriobero-Vila, J

    P. Barriobero-Vila, J. M. Va llejos, J. Gussone, J. Haubrich, K. Kelm, A. Stark, N. Schell, and G. Requena, ‘Interface-Mediated Twinni ng-Induced Plasticity in a Fine Hexagonal Microstructure Generated by Additive Manufac turing’, Advanced Materials, vol. 33, no. 52, Dec. 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    G. A. Johnson, M. M. Dolde, J. T. Zaugg, M. J. Quintana, and P. C. Collins, ‘Monitoring, Modeling, and Statistical Analysis in Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review’, Materials, vol. 17, no. 23. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 01-Dec- 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Akbari, F

    P. Akbari, F. Ogoke, N.-Y. Kao, K. Meidan i, C.-Y. Yeh, W. Lee, and A. Barati Farimani, ‘MeltpoolNet: Melt pool characteristic prediction in Metal Additive Manufacturing using machine learning’, Addit Manuf, vol. 55, p. 102817, Jul. 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Liu and Y

    S. Liu and Y. C. Shin, ‘Thermodynamically consistent phase-field modeling of competitive polycrystalline growth of beta grains duri ng additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V’, J Cryst Growth, vol. 564, p. 126112, Jun. 2021

    2021

  61. [69]

    J. Y. Choi, T. Xue, S. Liao, and J. Cao, ‘Accelerating phase-field simulation of three- dimensional microstructure evolution in laser powder bed fusion with composable machine learning predictions’, Addit Manuf, vol. 79, Jan. 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    D. R. Gunasegaram and I. Steinbach, ‘M odelling of microstructure formation in metal additive manufacturing: Recent progress, research gaps and perspectives’, Metals, vol. 11, no. 9. MDPI, 01-Sep-2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Senthilnathan, P

    A. Senthilnathan, P. Nath, S. Mahadevan, and P. Witherell, ‘Surrogate modeling of microstructure prediction in additive ma nufacturing’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 247, Jan. 2025

    2025

  64. [72]

    T. Xue, Z. Gan, S. Liao, and J. Cao, ‘Physics-embedded graph network for accelerating phase-field simulation of microstructure evolution in additive manufacturing’, NPJ Comput Mater, vol. 8, no. 1, Dec. 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Zhao, ‘Understanding and design of meta llic alloys guided by phase-field simulations’, npj Computational Materials, vol

    Y. Zhao, ‘Understanding and design of meta llic alloys guided by phase-field simulations’, npj Computational Materials, vol. 9, no. 1. Nature Research, 01-Dec-2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    Herbeaux, H

    A. Herbeaux, H. Aboleinein, A. Villani, C. Maurice, J. M. Ber gheau, and H. Klöcker, ‘Combining phase field modeling and deep learning for accurate modeling of grain structure in solidification’, Addit Manuf, vol. 81, Feb. 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Radhakrishnan, S

    B. Radhakrishnan, S. B. Gor ti, J. A. Turner, R. Acharya, J. A. Sharon, A. Staroselsky, and T. El-Wardany, ‘Phase field simulations of microstructure evolution in IN718 using a surrogate Ni–Fe–Nb alloy during laser powder be d fusion’, Metals (Basel), vol. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    G. Ma, G. Li, M. Liu, F. Wang, W. Liu, X. Wu, and Z. Shao, ‘Development of microstructure simulation methods of laser cladding layer’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 129, no. 3–4. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, pp. 1017–...

    2023

  69. [77]

    Ghosh, C

    S. Ghosh, C. K. Newman, and M. M. Franco is, ‘Tusas: A fully implicit parallel approach for coupled phase-field equations’, J Comput Phys, vol. 448, Jan. 2022. Page 32 of 36

    2022

  70. [78]

    Zhang, B

    X. Zhang, B. Mao, L. Mushongera, J. Kundi n, and Y. Liao, ‘Laser powder bed fusion of titanium aluminides: An investigation on site-specific microstructure evolution mechanism’, Mater Des, vol. 201, Mar. 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Segawa, S

    M. Segawa, S. Nakamura, and A. Yamana ka, ‘Evaluation of so lute segregation in SUS316L stainless steel under rapid solidification using a non-equilibrium multiphase field model’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 250, Feb. 2025

    2025

  72. [80]

    Acharya, J

    R. Acharya, J. A. Sharon, and A. Starosel sky, ‘Prediction of microstructure in laser powder bed fusion process’, Acta Mater, vol. 124, pp. 360–371, Feb. 2017

    2017

  73. [81]

    L. X. Lu, H. Jiang, Q. Bian, W. Shao, L. Li , Y. W. Zhang, B. Liang, Y. S. Shi, and L. Zhen, ‘Integrated modelling and simulation of Ni Ti alloy by powder bed fusion: Single track study’, Mater Des, vol. 227, Mar. 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    N. S. Bailey and Y. C. Sh in, ‘Multi-track, multi-layer de ndrite growth and solid phase transformation analysis during additive manufacturing of H13 tool steel using a combined hybrid cellular automata/phase field, solid-state phase prediction mode ls’, International Journal ...

    2022

  75. [83]

    De Baere, S

    D. De Baere, S. Mohanty, and J. H. Hattel, ‘Microstructural modelling of above β-transus heat treatment of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using cellular automata’, Mater Today Commun, vol. 24, Sep. 2020

    2020

  76. [84]

    Rolchigo, A

    M. Rolchigo, A. Plotkowski, and J. Belak, ‘S ensitivity of cellular automata grain structure predictions for high solidi fication rates’, Comput Ma ter Sci, vol. 196, p. 110498, Aug. 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Baumard, D

    A. Baumard, D. Ayrault, O. Fandeur, C. Bordreuil, and F. Deschaux-Beaume, ‘Numerical prediction of grain structure formation during laser powder bed fusion of 316 L stainless steel’, Mater Des, vol. 199, Feb. 2021

    2021

  78. [86]

    M. S. Mohebbi and V. Pl oshikhin, ‘Implementation of nucle ation in cellular automaton simulation of microstructural evolution during additive manufacturing of Al alloys’, Addit Manuf, vol. 36, Dec. 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    J. Tang, S. Kumar, L. De Lorenzis, and E. Hosseini, ‘Neural ce llular automata for solidification microstructure modelling’, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, vol. 414, Sep. 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    Xiong, C

    F. Xiong, C. Huang, O. L. Kafka, Y. Lian, W. Yan, M. Chen, and D. Fang, ‘Grain growth prediction in selective electron beam melti ng of Ti-6Al-4V with a cellular automaton method’, Mater Des, vol. 199, Feb. 2021

    2021

  81. [89]

    Lopez-Botello, U

    O. Lopez-Botello, U. Martinez-Hernandez, J. Ramírez, C. Pinna, and K. Mumtaz, ‘Two- dimensional simulation of grain structure growth within selective laser melted AA-2024’, Mater Des, vol. 113, pp. 369–376, Jan. 2017

    2024

  82. [90]

    Zhang, F

    J. Zhang, F. Liou, W. Seufzer, and K. Ta minger, ‘A coupled fin ite element cellular automaton model to predict thermal histor y and grain morphology of Ti-6Al-4V during direct metal deposition (DMD)’, Addit Manuf, vol. 11, pp. 32–39, Jul. 2016

    2016

  83. [91]

    Hosseinzadeh, M

    H. Hosseinzadeh, M. Nematollahi, K. Safaei, H. Abedi, P. Bayati, R. Javan, B. Poorganji, L. Yuan, and M. Elahinia, ‘A Numerical Approach to Model Microstructure Evolution for NiTi Shape Memory Alloy in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing’, Integr Mater Manuf Innov, ...

    2022

  84. [92]

    J. A. Mitchell, F. Abdeljawad, C. Battaile, C. Garcia-Cardona, E. A. Holm, E. R. Homer, J. Madison, T. M. Rodgers, A. P. Thom pson, V. Tikare, E. Webb, and S. J. Plimpton, Page 33 of 36 ‘Parallel simulation via SPPA RKS of on-lattice kinetic a nd Metropolis Monte Carlo models ...

    2023

  85. [93]

    Ackermann and C

    M. Ackermann and C. H aase, ‘Machine learning-based id entification of interpretable process-structure linkages in metal additive manufacturing’, Addit Manuf, vol. 71, Jun. 2023

    2023

  86. [94]

    T. M. Rodgers, J. D. Madison, and V. Ti kare, ‘Simulation of metal additive manufacturing microstructures using kinetic Monte Carlo’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 135, pp. 78–89, Jul. 2017

    2017

  87. [95]

    Sunny, H

    S. Sunny, H. Yu, R. Mathews, A. Malik, a nd W. Li, ‘Improved grain structure prediction in metal additive manufacturing using a Dynamic Kinetic Monte Carlo framework’, Addit Manuf, vol. 37, Jan. 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Pauza and A

    J. Pauza and A. Rollett, ‘Simulation Study of Hatch Spacing and Layer Thickness Effects on Microstructure in Laser Powder Bed Fu sion Additive Manufacturing using a Texture- Aware Solidification Potts Model’, J Ma ter Eng Perform, vo l. 30, no. 9, pp. 7007–7018, Sep. 2021

    2021

  89. [97]

    Mishra, ‘Measurements a nd Monte Carlo simulation of grain growth in the heat-affected zone of Ti–6Al–4V welds’, Acta Mater, vol

    S. Mishra, ‘Measurements a nd Monte Carlo simulation of grain growth in the heat-affected zone of Ti–6Al–4V welds’, Acta Mater, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1183–1192, Mar. 2004

    2004

  90. [98]

    A. P. Deshmankar, J. S. Challa, A. R. Singh, and S. P. Rega lla, ‘A Review of the Applications of Machine Learning for Predic tion and Analysis of Mechanical Properties and Microstructures in Additive Manufacturing’, J Comput Inf Sci Eng, vol. 24, no. 12, Dec. 2024

    2024

  91. [99]

    Samadiani, A

    N. Samadiani, A. S. Barnard, D. Gunase garam, and N. Fayyazifar, ‘Best practices for machine learning strategies aimed at process parameter development in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing’, J Intell Manuf, Oct. 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Abd-Elaziem, S

    W. Abd-Elaziem, S. Elkatatny, T. A. Seb aey, M. A. Darwish, M. A. Abd El-Baky, and A. hamada, ‘Machine learning for advancing lase r powder bed fusion of stainless steel’, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, vol. 30, pp. 4986–5016, May 2024

    2024

  93. [101]

    Alrfou, T

    K. Alrfou, T. Zhao, and A. Kordijazi, ‘D eep Learning Methods for Microstructural Image Analysis: The State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives’, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, vol. 13, no. 3. Sp ringer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, pp. 703–7...

    2024

  94. [102]

    Y. Qin, S. DeWitt, B. Radhakrishnan, a nd G. Biros, ‘GrainNN: A neighbor-aware long short-term memory network for predicting microstructure evolution during polycrystalline grain formation’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 218, Feb. 2023

    2023

  95. [103]

    A. A. K. Farizhandi, O. Betancourt, and M. Mamivand, ‘Deep learning approach for chemistry and processing history prediction from materials microstructure’, Sci Rep, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4552, Mar. 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    Thomas, A

    A. Thomas, A. R. Durmaz, M. Alam, P. Gumbsch, H. Sack, and C. Eberl, ‘Materials fatigue prediction using graph neural networks on mic rostructure representations’, Sci Rep, vol. 13, no. 1, Dec. 2023

    2023

  97. [105]

    Y. Qin, S. DeWitt, B. Radhakrishnan, a nd G. Biros, ‘GrainGNN: A dynamic graph neural network for predicting 3D grain microstructure’, J Comput Phys, vol. 510, Aug. 2024

    2024

  98. [106]

    M. Dai, M. F. Demirel, X. Liu, Y. Li ang, and J.-M. Hu, ‘Graph neural network for predicting the effective properties of polycrystalline materials: A comprehensive analysis’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 230, p. 112461, Oct. 2023. Page 34 of 36

    2023

  99. [107]

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, ‘Semi-superv ised classification with graph convolutional networks’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Herriott and A

    C. Herriott and A. D. Spear, ‘Predicting microstructure-dependent mechanical properties in additively manufactured metals with m achine- and deep-learning methods’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 175, Apr. 2020

    2020

  101. [109]

    X. Xie, J. Bennett, S. Saha, Y. Lu, J. Ca o, W. K. Liu, and Z. Gan, ‘Mechanistic data-driven prediction of as-built mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing’, NPJ Comput Mater, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 86, Jun. 2021

    2021

  102. [110]

    Z. Cao, Q. Liu, Q. Liu, X. Yu, J. J. Kruz ic, and X. Li, ‘A mach ine learning method to quantitatively predict alpha phase morphology in additivel y manufactured Ti-6Al-4V’, NPJ Comput Mater, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 195, Oct. 2023

    2023

  103. [111]

    J. Li, M. Sage, X. Guan, M. Brochu, and Y. F. Zhao, ‘Mach ine Learning-Enabled Competitive Grain Growth Behavior Study in Directed Energy Deposition Fabricated Ti6Al4V’, JOM, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 458–464, Jan. 2020

    2020

  104. [112]

    Gaikwad, B

    A. Gaikwad, B. Giera, G. M. Guss, J.-B. Forien, M. J. Matthews, and P. Rao, ‘Heterogeneous sensing and scientific mach ine learning for quality assurance in laser powder bed fusion – A single-track study’, Addit Manuf, vol. 36, p. 101659, Dec. 2020

    2020

  105. [113]

    L. Ma, H. Liu, M. Williams, L. Levine , and A. Ramazani, ‘I ntegrating Phase Field Modeling and Machine Learning to Develop Pr ocess-Microstructure Relationships in Laser Powder Bed Fusion of IN718’, Metall ography, Microstructure, and Analysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 983–995, Oct. 2024

    2024

  106. [114]

    D. Kats, Z. Wang, Z. Gan, W. K. Liu, G. J. Wagner, and Y. Lian, ‘A physics-informed machine learning method for pr edicting grain structure characteristics in directed energy deposition’, Comput Mater Sci, vol. 202, Feb. 2022

    2022

  107. [115]

    W. E. Frazier, Y. Fu, L. Li, and R. Deva nathan, ‘Dynamic data-driven multiscale modeling for predicting the degradation of a 316L stainless steel nuclear cladding material’, Journal of Nuclear Materials, vol. 603, p. 155429, Jan. 2025

    2025

  108. [116]

    K. Yang, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, S. Fan, M. Tang, D. Aberg, B. Sadigh, and F. Zhou, ‘Self- supervised learning and prediction of micr ostructure evolution with convolutional recurrent neural networks’, Patterns, vol. 2, no. 5, May 2021

    2021

  109. [117]

    Z. Ren, L. Gao, S. J. Clark, K. Fezzaa, P. Sh evchenko, A. Choi, W. Everhart, A. D. Rollett, L. Chen, and T. Sun, ‘Machine learning–a ided real-time det ection of keyhole pore generation in laser powder bed fusion’, Science (1979), vol. 379, no. 6627, pp. 89–94, Jan. 2023

    1979

  110. [118]

    Yadav, A

    S. Yadav, A. K. Rai, S. S. Kausal, and C. P. Paul, ‘A novel coupled model for microstructural evolution prediction during laser additive ma nufacturing: data driven and physics driven modelling’, Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 2025

    2025

  111. [119]

    S. Liao, T. Xue, J. Jeong, S. Webster, K. Ehmann, and J. Cao, ‘Hybrid thermal modeling of additive manufacturing processes using physics-informed neural networks for temperature prediction and parameter iden tification’, Comput Mech, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 499–512, Sep. 2023

    2023

  112. [120]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karnia dakis, ‘Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse proble ms involving nonlinear partial differential equations’, J Comput Phys, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, Feb. 2019

    2019

  113. [121]

    Sharma, S

    S. Sharma, S. S. Joshi, M. V. Pantawan e, M. Radhakrishnan, S. Mazumder, and N. B. Dahotre, ‘Multiphysics multi-scale comp utational framework for linking process– Page 35 of 36 structure–property relationships in metal additive manufacturing: a critical review’, International...

    2023

  114. [122]

    Farrag, Y

    A. Farrag, Y. Yang, N. Cao, D. Won, and Y. Jin, ‘Physics-Informed Machine Learning for metal additive manufacturing’, Progress in Additive Manufacturing. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 01-Jan-2024

    2024

  115. [123]

    Q. Zhu, Z. Lu, and Y. Hu, ‘A reality -augmented adaptive physics informed machine learning method for efficient heat transfer prediction in lase r melting’, J Manuf Process, vol. 124, pp. 444–457, Aug. 2024

    2024

  116. [124]

    Sajadi, M

    P. Sajadi, M. Rahmani Dehaghani, Y. Tang, and G. G. Wang, ‘Physics-Informed Online Learning for Temperature Prediction in Metal AM’, Materials, vol. 17, no. 13, Jul. 2024

    2024

  117. [125]

    M. M. Billah, M. Elleithy, W. Khan, S. Y ıldız, Z. E. Eğer, S. Liu, M. Long, and P. Acar, ‘Uncertainty Quantification of Microstructu res: A Perspective on Forward and Inverse Problems for Mechanical Properties of Aerospace Materials’, Adv Eng Mater, vol. 27, no. 2, Jan. 2025

    2025

  118. [126]

    S. Peng, S. Yang, B. Gao, W. Liu, F. Wang, and Z. Tang, ‘Prediction of 3D temperature field through single 2D temperature data based on transfer learning-based PINN model in laser-based directed energy deposition’ , J Manuf Process, vol. 138, pp. 140–156, Mar. 2025

    2025

  119. [127]

    Peng and A

    B. Peng and A. Panesar, ‘Multi-layer th ermal simulation using phys ics-informed neural network’, Addit Manuf, vol. 95, Sep. 2024

    2024

  120. [128]

    M. M. Hasan, Z. E. Eger, A. Senthilnathan, and P. Acar, ‘Microstructure-Sensitive Material Design with Physics-Informed Neural Ne tworks’, in AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, Reston, Virginia, 2023

    2023

  121. [129]

    Fang, ‘A High-Efficient Hybrid P hysics-Informed Neural Networks Based on Convolutional Neural Network’, IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst, vol

    Z. Fang, ‘A High-Efficient Hybrid P hysics-Informed Neural Networks Based on Convolutional Neural Network’, IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 5514–5526, Oct. 2022

    2022

  122. [130]

    Jiang, M

    F. Jiang, M. Xia, and Y. Hu, ‘Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Accurate Prediction of Temperature and Melt Pool Dimension in Metal Additive Manufacturing’, 3D Print Addit Manuf, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. e1679–e1689, Aug. 2024

    2024

  123. [131]

    Ghungrad, M

    S. Ghungrad, M. Faegh, B. Gould, S. J. Wolff, and A. Haghighi, ‘Architecture-Driven Physics-Informed Deep Learning for Temperature Prediction in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing With Limited Data’, J Manuf Sci Eng, vol. 145, no. 8, Aug. 2023

    2023

  124. [132]

    Sharma, Y

    R. Sharma, Y. B. Guo, M. Raissi, and W. G. Guo, ‘Physics-Informed Machine Learning of Argon Gas-Driven Melt Pool Dynamics’, J Manuf Sci Eng, vol. 146, no. 8, Aug. 2024

    2024

  125. [133]

    J. Xie, Z. Chai, L. Xu, X. Ren, S. Liu, and X. Chen, ‘3D temperature field prediction in direct energy deposition of metals using physics informed neural network’, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 119, no. 5–6, pp. 3449– 3468, Mar. 2022

    2022

  126. [134]

    Hosseini, P

    E. Hosseini, P. Scheel, O. Müller, R. Molinaro, and S. Mishra, ‘Single-track thermal analysis of laser powder bed fusion process: Parametric solution through physics-informed neural networks’, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, vol. 410, p. 116019, May 2023

    2023

  127. [135]

    Sharma and Y

    R. Sharma and Y. B. Guo, ‘Thermal-Mechan ical Physics Informed Deep Learning For Fast Prediction of Thermal Stress Evolution in Laser Metal Deposition’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18786, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Sharma, M

    R. Sharma, M. Raissi, and Y. B. Guo, ‘Physics-informed machine learning for smart additive manufacturing’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10761, 2024. Page 36 of 36

    2024 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Y. Ren, Q. Wang, and P. (Pan) Michaler is, ‘A Physics-Informed Two-Level Machine- Learning Model for Predicting Melt-Pool Size in Laser Powder Bed Fusion’, J Dyn Syst Meas Control, vol. 143, no. 12, Dec. 2021

    2021

  130. [138]

    Hartmann, O

    S. Hartmann, O. Murua, J. I. Arrizubieta, A. Lamikiz, and P. Mayr, ‘Physics-informed neural network approach to speed up Laser-DED modelling’, in Procedia CIRP, 2024, vol. 124, pp. 352–357

    2024

  131. [139]

    J. Tang, P. Scheel, M. S. Mohebbi, C. Lein enbach, L. De Lorenzis, and E. Hosseini, ‘On the calibration of thermo-microstructural simulation models for Laser Powder Bed Fusion process: Integrating physics- informed neural networks with cellular automata’, Addit Manuf, vol. 96,...

    2024

  132. [140]

    Liu and Y

    D. Liu and Y. Wang, ‘Metal Additive Manufacturing Process Design based on Physics Constrained Neural Networks and Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization’, Manuf Lett, vol. 33, pp. 817–827, Sep. 2022

    2022

  133. [141]

    A. D. Jagtap, K. Kawaguchi, and G. E. Karniadakis, ‘Adaptive activation functions accelerate convergence in deep and physics-informed neural networks’, J Comput Phys, vol. 404, p. 109136, Mar. 2020

    2020

  134. [142]

    A. D. J. Ameya D. Jagtap and G. E. K. George Em Karniadakis, ‘Extended Physics- Informed Neural Networks (XPINNs): A Generalized Space-Time Domain Decomposition Based Deep Learning Framework for Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations’, Commun Comput Phys, vol. 28, no. 5, pp....

    2002

  135. [143]

    Z. Gao, L. Yan, and T. Zhou, ‘Failure-In formed Adaptive Sampling for PINNs’, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. A1971–A1994, Aug. 2023

    2023

  136. [144]

    J. D. Toscano, V. Oommen, A. J. Varghese, Z. Zou, N. A. Daryakenari, C. Wu, and G. E. Karniadakis, ‘From PINNs to PIKANs: Recent Advances in Physics-Informed Machine Learning’, Oct. 2024

    2024

  137. [145]

    Perez, S

    S. Perez, S. Maddu, I. F. Sbalzarini, a nd P. Poncet, ‘Adaptive weighting of Bayesian physics informed neural networks for mult itask and multiscale forward and inverse problems’, J Comput Phys, vol. 491, p. 112342, Oct. 2023

    2023

  138. [146]

    L. Yang, X. Meng, and G. E. Karniadakis, ‘B-PINNs: Bayesian physics-informed neural networks for forward and inve rse PDE problems with noisy data’, J Comput Phys, vol. 425, p. 109913, Jan. 2021

    2021

  139. [147]

    H. Wang, B. Li, L. Lei, and F. Xuan, ‘U ncertainty-aware fatigue -life prediction of additively manufactured Hastelloy X supera lloy using a physics-informed probabilistic neural network’, Reliab Eng Syst Saf, vol. 243, p. 109852, Mar. 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.