Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A Collaborative Process Parameter Recommender System for Fleets of Networked Manufacturing Machines -- with Application to 3D Printing

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sharing print data across a fleet lets each 3D printer find its optimal speed and acceleration in roughly 40 percent fewer trials.

desk verdict A genuine new problem framing with real experimental data, but the headline trial-reduction claims rest on evaluation choices that need to be hardened before they are credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12252 v1 pith:3MTPJU3J submitted 2025-06-13 cs.LG

Weishi Wang , Sicong Guo , Chenhuan Jiang , Mohamed Elidrisi , Myungjin Lee , Harsha V. Madhyastha , Raed Al Kontar , Chinedum E. Okwudire This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords collaborativelearningprocessparameteroptimizationsequentialmatrixcompletion3Dprintingfarmspectralclusteringalternatingleastsquaresfleetrecommendersystem
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

This paper tries to establish that a fleet of nominally identical manufacturing machines can find each machine's best process settings with far fewer physical experiments if the machines share data through a collaborative recommender system. The authors model the fleet's unknown utility values—for ten 3D printers, a combination of print quality and print time—as a sparse matrix with one row per machine and one column per parameter combination, and complete the matrix under a low-rank assumption using alternating least squares. At each round, the completed matrix directs each printer, or the most promising subset under limited participation, to the untested speed and acceleration combination with the highest predicted utility. On their ten-printer 3D printing farm this reduces the average number of trials needed to reach the true optimal settings from 9.8 to 5.7 under full participation and from 15.2 to 9.2 when only half the fleet can experiment each round, with lower cumulative regret along the way. If the claim is right, machine-specific tuning becomes practical for fleets where per-machine trial-and-error is too slow or too wasteful.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collaborative utility matrix built by stacking each machine's vectorized utility tensor as one row, so the fleet becomes a single sparse matrix $U \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times l}$ with one column per process parameter combination. Its low-rank factorization $U = AB^T + E$ is the mechanism that lets one machine's observations fill in another machine's missing entries. The algorithm alternates ridge-regression steps to estimate $A$ and $B$, then uses the completed matrix to choose the next experiment: equation (4) picks the column of maximum predicted utility for each machine, and equation (5) first picks the $c$ most promising machines before choosing their argmax columns. The rank $r$ is not fixed in advance; it is estimated from the sparsely observed matrix by mean imputation followed by spectral clustering of machines into behavioral groups.

What would settle it

Run the same algorithm on a fleet of printers, or a synthetic surrogate, whose per-machine utility surfaces are deliberately generated to be nearly independent, so the true matrix is high-rank rather than rank 3; if the collaborative sequential completion no longer beats independent matrix completion on trials-to-optimal and cumulative regret, then the low-rank assumption, not the acquisition rule or the ALS solver, is what carried the reported reductions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that collaborative sequential matrix completion can exploit machine-to-machine variability instead of being defeated by it. The authors assume the utility matrix $U$ is generated as $U = AB^T + E$ with low rank $r$, where $A$ encodes machine-specific coefficients and $B$ a shared basis over process parameters; alternating least squares recovers the missing entries from sparse observations, and a greedy acquisition rule then selects, for each machine, the parameter column with maximal predicted utility, or under limited participation the top $c$ machines by predicted maximum before choosing their argmax columns. On the ten-printer farm, with 45% of each printer's 35 speed-acceleration combinations observed initially and a budget of 19 further rounds, this procedure finds the true optimal settings in 5.7 trials on average versus 9.8 for per-machine non-collaborative completion, a 41.8% reduction, and 9.2 versus 15.2 when only 5 of 10 printers can run experiments each round, a 39.5% reduction. The paper also reports lower cumulative regret for most printers, meaning the intermediate choices were closer to optimal, not just the final recommendation.

Load-bearing premise

The entire gain rests on the assumption that the fleet's utility matrix is approximately low-rank with rank $r=3$, meaning the printers' quality-and-speed surfaces share enough latent structure that one printer's tested settings genuinely inform another printer's untested ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under full fleet participation, the collaborative method reaches each printer's true optimal speed and acceleration in 5.7 trials on average, a 41.8% reduction over the 9.8 trials needed by non-collaborative matrix completion.
  • Under partial participation, with only 5 of 10 printers able to test in each round, the collaborative method still needs 9.2 trials on average versus 15.2 for the baseline, a 39.5% reduction.
  • Cumulative regret is lower for most printers, so the settings tried along the way are also closer to optimal, which the authors interpret as fewer discarded parts during tuning.
  • The framework is presented as broadly applicable beyond 3D printing to any manufacturing domain where process parameter tuning is black-box and expensive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not take is to replace the greedy argmax acquisition with an uncertainty-aware rule, such as selecting the parameter with the largest upper confidence bound derived from the matrix completion residuals, which would balance exploration against exploitation.
  • The rank-estimation step could be tested in isolation: running the same mean-imputation-plus-spectral-clustering procedure on synthetic utility matrices of known rank would show whether the estimated rank matches the true rank before the sequential trials begin.
  • If the low-rank assumption transfers, the same row-stacked collaborative completion could apply to other fleets with per-unit utility surfaces, such as CNC machine tools, robot calibrations, or sensor networks, although the paper only demonstrates 3D printers.
  • The limited-participation rule prioritizes machines with the highest predicted utility; an information-gain alternative that prioritizes machines with the most uncertain rows would be a different design choice with testably different which-machines-get-tested behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a collaborative process-parameter recommender for fleets of identical manufacturing machines. It represents each machine's utility over discrete parameter settings as a row of a matrix U, assumes U ≈ AB^T with rank r=3, and alternates ALS matrix completion with greedy selection of the argmax predicted utility. The method is tested on a 10-printer FFF 3D-printing farm: 35 speed/acceleration configurations are printed and scanned, a 55% random mask simulates initial sparsity, and the algorithm is compared with a non-collaborative matrix-completion baseline under full and partial fleet participation. The reported central result is a 41.8% reduction in the average number of trials to reach the machine-specific optimum under full participation and a 39.5% reduction under partial participation; the paper also reports lower cumulative regret.

Significance. If the trial reductions were established, this would be a useful practical contribution to parameter tuning in 3D printing farms and similar equipment fleets. The experimental data collection is real and detailed, involving 350 printed cubes and laser surface scans, and the sequential matrix-completion formulation is natural for the problem. However, the claimed reductions rest on a single masked realization, an unvalidated rank-3 assumption, and an underspecified non-collaborative baseline; as presented, the quantitative headline is not yet supported. The paper does not provide code or data and offers no theoretical guarantees, so the contribution is an empirical demonstration that needs substantially stronger validation before the claimed reductions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4, Tables 1 and 2] The headline reductions (41.8% and 39.5%) are computed from a single random 55% mask, and in Case 2 the non-collaborative baseline also uses a single random selection of c=5 machines per round. Per-printer trial counts vary widely, with values in Table 1 ranging from 1 to 18 and many censored entries in Table 2, so the central comparison is not statistically supported. Please rerun the experiment over multiple masks, report paired per-printer differences with means and confidence intervals, and use a significance test, or explicitly present the numbers as a single illustrative run rather than as established reductions.
  2. [§2.4 and Eq. (2)] The rank r=3 is estimated from the masked U using mean imputation and spectral clustering, but the text gives no validation of this estimate and no sensitivity analysis. Because the entire collaborative mechanism and the matrix completions driving Eqs. (4)-(5) rely on U being approximately rank 3, this assumption is load-bearing. Since the authors have the complete 10x35 utility matrix from their own experiments, please report its singular-value spectrum or reconstruction error for ranks 1-5 and repeat the main experiments for at least r=2,3,4,5. Using observed data to choose a rank is not in itself circular, but the current procedure is unvalidated and the conclusions depend on it.
  3. [§3.3, non-collaborative baseline] The baseline is underspecified: 'each machine independently estimates its utility matrix using only its own observed entries by matrix completion' does not state the rank, solver, regularization, or initialization. With 35 entries per machine and about 16 observed on average, a low-rank completion of a single machine's 5x7 matrix is not obviously identifiable, and the implementation details can dominate the comparison. Please specify the baseline completely and consider adding a standard per-machine optimizer, such as a Gaussian-process bandit, to verify that the improvement is due to collaboration rather than to a particular failure mode of the chosen baseline.
  4. [§4, cumulative regret definition] The displayed equation for regret(t)_k equates the true utility gap |u_k(x^(t)) - u_k(x*_k)| with |\hat U^(t)_{k,j*_k} - U_{k,j_true_k}|. The right-hand side uses the model's predicted utility at the selected entry, not the actual utility of that entry, so it does not measure regret as defined by the first equality. If the figures use actual utilities, the formula should be corrected; if they use predictions, the regret claim does not reflect real decision costs. This needs to be fixed and the figures checked against the corrected definition.
  5. [§4, Case 2 metric and Table 2] In the limited-participation scenario, t*_k is defined as a global round index rather than the number of experiments actually performed on printer k. Because only c=5 of the 10 printers are selected each round, a printer that is not selected for ten rounds accumulates no data yet receives a larger t*; the 'average number of trials needed' in Table 2 therefore mixes waiting time with experimentation cost. Please report the number of selections per printer or the fleet-level experimental cost, and adapt the Kaplan-Meier estimator in Sec. 4 to that quantity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3 and Algorithm 1] M is called the total experimental budget, but in Case 1 the budget is 190 new experiments (19 rounds x 10 printers). Please clarify whether M denotes rounds or total experiments, because the interpretation of trial counts and the Kaplan-Meier estimator depends on this distinction.
  2. [§4, definition of t*] If the true optimum for a printer is already contained in the initially observed 45% of entries, the definition of t* should count it as zero trials; the tables report no zero values, so please clarify the convention used for initially known optima.
  3. [§4, Figs. 5 and 6] The captions should state what the y-axis represents (utility units), and in Fig. 6 the red crosses and the interpolation across rounds in which a printer was not selected should be explained; connecting points across unselected rounds can overstate the apparent trajectory.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The constants 0.78 and 0.82 are described as illustrative, but the utility definition drives all reported results; a brief sensitivity analysis on these weights would help the reader judge robustness.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The text uses 'significantly faster' and 'significantly lower' without statistical testing; please qualify this language or add confidence intervals to support it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trial-reduction claims are evaluated on held-out masked entries against the fully measured utility matrix, and no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a sequential matrix completion pipeline (Eqs. 2-5, Algorithm 1) applied to a fully measured 10x35 utility matrix U, of which 55% of entries are intentionally masked for evaluation. The reported quantities -- trials to reach x*_k and cumulative regret -- are computed against the complete U (Sec. 4: 'x*_k is known, since we have access to the complete utility matrix U but intentionally masked 55% of its entries for evaluation purposes'). The masked entries are not used to fit the model at the time of evaluation, so the predictions are not equal to their inputs by construction. The rank r=3 is estimated from the observed (unmasked) entries via mean imputation and spectral clustering (Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 3.3), and lambda=0.05 is fixed a priori; these are standard model-selection choices rather than fitted values renamed as predictions. The only overlapping-author citations ([19], [20], [37]) support background statements about distributed manufacturing and matrix factorization; they do not carry the load of the empirical claim. The unvalidated rank estimation is a legitimate robustness concern, but it does not make the derivation circular: the evaluation would be invalid if the low-rank assumption fails, yet the argument's validity is not assumed by its own construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the low-rank assumption for the cross-machine utility matrix, on the estimated rank r=3, and on the user-defined utility weights. None of these are independently validated against external benchmarks, so the quantitative gains (41.8%, 39.5%) are conditional on these choices.

free parameters (4)
  • Matrix rank r = 3
    The low rank of the collaborative utility matrix U is estimated via mean imputation plus spectral clustering (Sec 2.4) and is used throughout the ALS matrix completion. If the true rank differs, the reconstructed utilities and the resulting trial counts change.
  • Regularization coefficient lambda = 0.05
    Set in Sec 3.3 for the ALS objective (Eq 3); chosen by the authors without a tuning procedure, and affects the predictions of missing utilities.
  • Utility weight constants (0.78, 0.82) = 0.78, 0.82
    Hand-chosen parameters in Eq (9) define the printing utility that is the optimization target; they are acknowledged as an example but determine what counts as 'optimal'.
  • Masking fraction = 55% (192 of 350 entries)
    The evaluation masks 55% of the fully measured utility matrix (Sec 3.3) to simulate initial sparsity; the reported trial counts depend on this choice and on the specific random mask.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fleet utility matrix U is approximately low-rank (U = AB^T + E with small r)
    Invoked in Eq (2) and Sec 2.2.1; this is what allows machines to borrow strength. If utility surfaces across machines are not well approximated by a small number of latent factors, matrix completion will not improve prediction.
  • domain assumption Spectral clustering on a mean-imputed matrix yields a valid estimate of the rank r
    Stated in Sec 2.4 and used to set r=3 in Sec 3.3; no evidence or theory is given that this procedure recovers the true rank of U.
  • ad hoc to paper Greedy selection of the argmax predicted utility is an effective sequential exploration strategy
    Eqs (4)-(5) choose the next experiment by maximizing the current MC prediction. The paper provides no theoretical or empirical comparison to exploration methods (e.g., upper confidence bound, Thompson sampling).
  • domain assumption The utility function in Eqs (9)-(10) captures the desired quality-productivity tradeoff
    The weights w_q and w_tau are hand-specified; the paper notes it is 'just an example', so all optimal settings are defined relative to this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Random masking 55% of a fully observed matrix simulates the realistic initial data-collection scenario
    Used in Sec 3.3 to construct the evaluation; the realism of this sparsity pattern is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Collaborative Process Parameter Recommender System for Fleets of Networked Manufacturing Machines -- with Application to 3D Printing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MTPJU3J

@misc{pith2026250612252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Collaborative Process Parameter Recommender System for Fleets of Networked Manufacturing Machines -- with Application to 3D Printing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MTPJU3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12252}
}
read the original abstract

Fleets of networked manufacturing machines of the same type, that are collocated or geographically distributed, are growing in popularity. An excellent example is the rise of 3D printing farms, which consist of multiple networked 3D printers operating in parallel, enabling faster production and efficient mass customization. However, optimizing process parameters across a fleet of manufacturing machines, even of the same type, remains a challenge due to machine-to-machine variability. Traditional trial-and-error approaches are inefficient, requiring extensive testing to determine optimal process parameters for an entire fleet. In this work, we introduce a machine learning-based collaborative recommender system that optimizes process parameters for each machine in a fleet by modeling the problem as a sequential matrix completion task. Our approach leverages spectral clustering and alternating least squares to iteratively refine parameter predictions, enabling real-time collaboration among the machines in a fleet while minimizing the number of experimental trials. We validate our method using a mini 3D printing farm consisting of ten 3D printers for which we optimize acceleration and speed settings to maximize print quality and productivity. Our approach achieves significantly faster convergence to optimal process parameters compared to non-collaborative matrix completion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12252 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a 3D printing farm. Such farms could have thousands of 3D printers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Squeezing operating tensors uk into vectors Vec(uk) and stacking them to form the collaborative matrix U. x ∈ X is the process parameter we need to optimize over. The blue circle is the optimal location x ⋆ k for each machine. The entry with the value ’NA’ denotes the missing entry. We assume d = 2 here for clear visualization. Indeed, MC has garnered significant attention over the past decade, es￾pecially within re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The experimental setup for Sec. 3.1. (a) Creality Ender-3 Pro desktop FFF 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The investigated (a) normalized print quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative regret of our proposed collaborative MC benchmarked against non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative regret of our proposed collaborative MC benchmarked against non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michelsen, M

    K.-E. Michelsen, M. Collan, J. Savolainen, P. Ritala, Changing man- ufacturing landscape: From a factory to a network, in: Handbook of Smart Materials, Technologies, and Devices: Applications of Industry 4.0, Springer, 2021, pp. 1–21

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Skawiński, P

    P. Skawiński, P. Siemiński, The 3d printer farm – function and technol- ogy requirements and didactic use, Mechanik 90 (2017) 796–800. 22

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Weflen, M

    E. Weflen, M. Bindel, K. Wyatt, F. Peters, Large scale parallel 3d printing of patterns for metal casting, in: IISE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2021, pp. 501–506

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Accessed: 2025-03-16

    All3DP, 3d printing farm: Great showcases, All3DP (2024). Accessed: 2025-03-16

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Schwaar, Inside china’s largest 3d print farm, All3DP (2024)

    C. Schwaar, Inside china’s largest 3d print farm, All3DP (2024). Ac- cessed: 2025-03-16

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Ultimaker, Bridge manufacturing with the ultimaker 3,https://yout u.be/3_9h928y1ig?si=FM6hqRD7fyu5xx0F, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    E. C. Balta, D. M. Tilbury, K. Barton, A centralized framework for system-level control and management of additive manufacturing fleets, in: 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2018, pp. 1071–1078

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Moylan, J

    S. Moylan, J. Land, A. Possolo, Additive manufacturing round robin protocols: A pilot study, in: Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrica- tion Symposium, Austin, TX, 2015, pp. 1504–1512

    work page 2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Stoop, J

    F. Stoop, J. Mayr, C. Sulz, P. Kaftan, F. Bleicher, K. Yamazaki, K. We- gener, Cloud-based thermal error compensation with a federated learn- ing approach, Precision Engineering 79 (2023) 135–145

    2023

  2. [10]

    Santana, J

    L. Santana, J. Lino Alves, A. da Costa Sabino Netto, A study of para- metric calibration for low cost 3d printing: Seeking improvement in dimensional quality, Materials & Design 135 (2017) 159–172

    2017

  3. [11]

    C. Wang, X. Tan, E. Liu, S. B. Tor, Process parameter optimization and mechanical properties for additively manufactured stainless steel 316l parts by selective electron beam melting, Materials & Design 147 (2018) 157–166

    2018

  4. [12]

    M. A. Mahmood, A. I. Visan, C. Ristoscu, I. N. Mihailescu, Artificial neural network algorithms for 3d printing, Materials 14 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    C. Wang, X. Tan, S. Tor, C. Lim, Machine learning in additive man- ufacturing: State-of-the-art and perspectives, Additive Manufacturing 36 (2020) 101538. 23

    2020

  6. [14]

    Dharmadhikari, N

    S. Dharmadhikari, N. Menon, A. Basak, A reinforcement learning ap- proach for process parameter optimization in additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 71 (2023) 103556

    2023

  7. [15]

    H. Chen, Y. F. Zhao, Learning algorithm based modeling and process parameters recommendation system for binder jetting additive manufac- turing process, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Eng...

    2015

  8. [16]

    C. B. Toprak, C. U. Dogruer, Optimal process parameter determina- tion in selective laser melting via machine learning-guided sequential quadratic programing, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical En- gineers, Part C 239 (2025) 807–820

    2025

  9. [17]

    P. Wu, Y. He, Y. Li, J. He, X. Liu, Y. Wang, Multi-objective optimi- sation of machining process parameters using deep learning-based data- driven genetic algorithm and topsis, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64 (2022) 40–52

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zhang, G

    Y. Zhang, G. Du, H. Li, Y. Yang, H. Zhang, X. Xu, Y. Gong, Multi- objective optimization of machining parameters based on an improved hopfield neural network for step-nc manufacturing, Journal of Manufac- turing Systems 74 (2024) 222–232

    2024

  11. [19]

    C. E. Okwudire, H. V. Madhyastha, Distributed manufacturing for and by the masses, Science 372 (2021) 341–342

    2021

  12. [20]

    Kontar, N

    R. Kontar, N. Shi, X. Yue, S. Chung, E. Byon, M. Chowdhury, J. Jin, W. Kontar, N. Masoud, M. Nouiehed, et al., The internet of federated things (ioft), IEEE Access 9 (2021) 156071–156113

    2021

  13. [21]

    O. F. Valilai, M. Houshmand, A collaborative and integrated platform to support distributed manufacturing system using a service-oriented approach based on cloud computing paradigm, Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing 29 (2013) 110–127

    2013

  14. [22]

    W. Shen, Q. Hao, S. Wang, Y. Li, H. Ghenniwa, An agent-based service- oriented integration architecture for collaborative intelligent manufac- turing, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 24 315–325. International Manufacturing Leaders Forum 2005: Global Co...

    2007

  15. [23]

    Bootaki, G

    B. Bootaki, G. Zhang, A location-production-routing problem for dis- tributed manufacturing platforms: A neural genetic algorithm solution methodology, International Journal of Production Economics 275 (2024) 109325

    2024

  16. [24]

    Y. G. Kim, S. Lee, J. Son, H. Bae, B. D. Chung, Multi-agent system and reinforcement learning approach for distributed intelligence in a flexible smart manufacturing system, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 57 (2020) 440–450

    2020

  17. [25]

    Bahrpeyma, D

    F. Bahrpeyma, D. Reichelt, A review of the applications of multi-agent reinforcement learning in smart factories, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    P. Guo, J. Xiong, Y. Wang, X. Meng, L. Qian, Intelligent schedul- ing for group distributed manufacturing systems: Harnessing deep re- inforcement learning in cloud-edge cooperation, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 8 (2024) 1687–1698

    2024

  19. [27]

    Yuwono, A

    S. Yuwono, A. K. Hussain, D. Schwung, A. Schwung, Self-optimization in distributed manufacturing systems using modular state-based stack- elberg games, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22912 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mehta, M

    M. Mehta, M. V. Bimrose, D. J. McGregor, W. P. King, C. Shao, Fed- erated learning enables privacy-preserving and data-efficient dimension prediction and part qualification across additive manufacturing facto- ries, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 74 (2024) 752–761

    2024

  21. [29]

    X. Chen, R. Jin, Adapipe: A recommender system for adaptive com- putation pipelines in cyber-manufacturing computation services, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17 (2021) 6221–6229

    2021

  22. [30]

    Simeone, Y

    A. Simeone, Y. Zeng, A. Caggiano, Intelligent decision-making support system for manufacturing solution recommendation in a cloud frame- work, TheInternationalJournalofAdvancedManufacturingTechnology 112 (2021) 1035–1050. 25

    2021

  23. [31]

    J. Liu, Y. Chen, Q. Liu, B. Tekinerdogan, A similarity-enhanced hy- brid group recommendation approach in cloud manufacturing systems, Computers and Industrial Engineering 178 (2023) 109128

    2023

  24. [32]

    Koren, R

    Y. Koren, R. Bell, C. Volinsky, Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems, Computer 42 (2009) 30–37

    2009

  25. [33]

    L. T. Nguyen, J. Kim, B. Shim, Low-rank matrix completion: A con- temporary survey, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 94215–94237

    2019

  26. [34]

    Y. Zhou, D. Wilkinson, R. Schreiber, R. Pan, Large-scale parallel col- laborative filtering for the netflix prize, in: Algorithmic Aspects in In- formation and Management: 4th International Conference, AAIM 2008, Shanghai, China, June 23-25, 2008. Proceedings 4, Springer, 2008...

    2008

  27. [35]

    A. R. T. Donders, G. J. Van Der Heijden, T. Stijnen, K. G. Moons, A gentle introduction to imputation of missing values, Journal of clinical epidemiology 59 (2006) 1087–1091

    2006

  28. [36]

    Van Buuren, K

    S. Van Buuren, K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, mice: Multivariate imputa- tion by chained equations in r, Journal of statistical software 45 (2011) 1–67

    2011

  29. [37]

    N. Shi, R. A. Kontar, S. Fattahi, Heterogeneous matrix factoriza- tion: When features differ by datasets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17744 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Von Luxburg, A tutorial on spectral clustering, Statistics and com- puting 17 (2007) 395–416

    U. Von Luxburg, A tutorial on spectral clustering, Statistics and com- puting 17 (2007) 395–416

    2007

  31. [39]

    M. Duan, D. Yoon, C. E. Okwudire, A limited-preview filtered b-spline approach to tracking control–with application to vibration-induced error compensation of a 3d printer, Mechatronics 56 (2018) 287–296

    2018

  32. [40]

    G. Neu, A. Antos, A. György, C. Szepesvári, Online markov decision processes under bandit feedback, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 23 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    E. L. Kaplan, P. Meier, Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations, Journal of the American Statistical Association 53 (1958) 457–481. 26

    1958

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.