Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

DeepMill: Neural Accessibility Learning for Subtractive Manufacturing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DeepMill is a cutter-aware, octree-based neural network that predicts which surface regions of a mesh are inaccessible to a machining cutter and which regions cause the worst occlusion, running in about 0.04 seconds while matching the…

desk verdict New task framing and a plausible learned surrogate, but the headline accuracies are overstated and the label generator is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06093 v1 pith:BKEAJEGD submitted 2025-02-10 cs.GR

Fanchao Zhong , Yang Wang , Peng-Shuai Wang , Lin Lu , Haisen Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GR
keywords subtractivemanufacturingaccessibilityanalysismanufacturabilityoctreeconvolutionalnetworkcutter-awaresegmentationocclusiondetectionCNCmachiningneural
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

DeepMill sets out to prove that a neural network can replace slow geometric accessibility analysis in subtractive manufacturing. The paper claims that a cutter-aware, octree-based convolutional network can predict which surface regions a ball-end cutter cannot reach without collision, plus the regions that cause the worst occlusion, across both CAD and freeform meshes and across a wide range of cutter sizes. If the claim holds, designers get near-instant feedback on manufacturability during shape editing, instead of waiting minutes to hours for geometric collision checks. The reported result is 94.7% accuracy on inaccessible regions and an 88.7% F1-score on occlusion regions, with an average inference time of 0.04 seconds on complex geometry.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is an octree-based convolutional network (O-CNN) arranged as a U-Net, with two additions that carry the cutter awareness. First, the four cutter parameters are encoded by fully connected modules into a 256-dimensional feature that is concatenated into the decoder features at every layer, so local and global collision patterns can be conditioned on tool geometry. Second, a dual-head segmentation layer predicts inaccessible and occlusion labels from shared features, reflecting that both labels come from the same collision process. The octree representation restricts convolution to non-empty nodes, which is what makes high-resolution meshes tractable.

What would settle it

Take a set of test shapes, compute accessibility a second way: dense, exhaustive sampling of cutter orientations with exact continuous intersection tests (or a high-resolution physical machining trial), then compare DeepMill's predictions to that ground truth. If the accuracy drops far below 94.7% on inaccessible regions, the reported numbers just indicate agreement with the approximate pipeline. A simpler check is to verify the Voronoi spacing condition (smallest cell edge > 2*CR) on the generated datasets; if it fails, collisions can slip through undetected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that accessibility analysis, traditionally a geometric computation over sampled cutter directions, can be learned end-to-end. DeepMill takes a point cloud with normals sampled on the mesh surface, embeds the four ball-end cutter parameters (corner radius, cutter length, flat radius, flat height) at every decoder stage, and outputs two per-point binary labels: inaccessible where every sampled cutter direction collides, and occlusion for the top 10% of points most responsible for blocking access. The paper argues the network implicitly captures local surface geometry, global context, and the collision interaction between cutter and shape, and that it generalizes from 5K+ CAD training shapes to freeform and high-complexity meshes. The abstract's 94.7% inaccessible accuracy and 88.7% occlusion figure (an F1-score in Table 1) are the evidence offered for this claim.

Load-bearing premise

The ground-truth labels used to train and test DeepMill come from a discrete Voronoi-sampling collision check that tries only 150 cutter directions and assumes each Voronoi cell is smaller than the cutter radius; if that check misses collisions or mislabels a surface, DeepMill's accuracy only measures agreement with that approximate method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers can receive real-time manufacturability feedback while editing a shape, since inference takes about 0.04 seconds versus 4–400 seconds for the geometric baseline.
  • DeepMill generalizes to freeform meshes and to complex models with over 100K vertices, despite training on simpler CAD shapes.
  • The cutter-embedding design lets a single network handle a wide range of cutter sizes; adding extreme-size data to training extends that range further.
  • The same network can be repurposed for volume accessibility analysis in rough machining, where it reports up to 97.9% accuracy.
  • The released dataset of inaccessible and occlusion labels on CAD and freeform shapes is the first of its kind for learning-based accessibility analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 88.7% 'accuracy' quoted in the abstract is actually an F1-score for occlusion in Table 1; the raw accuracy for occlusion is around 98%, so the headline number is conservative but the metric is mislabeled.
  • The network's tendency to produce more symmetric inaccessible regions than the asymmetric direction-sampled ground truth suggests learned surrogates can implicitly regularize sampling artifacts, a property worth studying beyond this task.
  • A direct extension would be to predict accessibility for other cutter types (flat-end, torus, T-slot) by changing the parameter vector, though the current ground-truth generator only covers ball-end cutters.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DeepMill, a dual-head octree-based convolutional network that takes a surface point cloud with normals and ball-end cutter parameters as input and predicts per-point labels for inaccessible regions and occlusion regions. Training and test labels are generated by a Voronoi-site-based discrete collision detection method (Section 4) that samples 150 cutter directions on the upper hemisphere. The network is trained on 5K CAD shapes and evaluated on held-out CAD, freeform, and complex meshes, reporting accuracies of up to 96.3% for inaccessible regions, F1-scores around 89% for occlusion regions, and inference times of 0.01–0.04 seconds, compared to minutes for the geometric method.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reliable, DeepMill demonstrates that a learned surrogate can approximate a geometric accessibility analysis pipeline at a tiny fraction of the computational cost, and it generalizes across cutter sizes and to freeform meshes, which are important practical settings. The paper also contributes a new labeled dataset. The main strength is the thorough experimental evaluation, including ablations of the cutter module and tests on out-of-range cutter parameters. However, the central claim of 'accuracy' is weakened by the fact that the ground-truth labels come from an approximate discrete method that is not validated against exact accessibility analysis, and by the mislabeling of the occlusion F1-score as accuracy in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Figure 4(d)] The text in Section 4.1 requires 'the shortest edge length of the smallest Voronoi cell is greater than 2*CR' to avoid missed collisions, while the Figure 4(d) caption states 'the spacing between adjacent sites must be smaller than the cutter's ball-end radius (CR).' These conditions are mutually contradictory. The paper does not report any check that the datasets satisfy either condition, nor does it explain the relationship between site spacing and cell edge length. This uncertainty directly affects the correctness of the ground-truth labels used for training and evaluation.
  2. [Eq. (6) and Section 5.1] Eq. (6) labels a site inaccessible only if every one of m=150 sampled directions (Section 5.1) contains a collision. Because an unsampled direction could provide a collision-free approach, the discrete sampling may over-label inaccessible regions. No convergence analysis or sensitivity study with respect to m is presented, and the abstract's accuracy claims are therefore contingent on an unverified sampling density.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract and conclusion report '88.7% accuracy' for occlusion regions, but Table 1 lists F1_o values (86.5%–90.0%) and Acc_o values (97.5%–98.3%); the 88.7% figure corresponds to the Freeform(15K) F1_o. Section 3.1 explicitly states that F1-score is used for occlusion evaluation due to class imbalance. The abstract should either report the F1-score as such or use Acc_o for both tasks. As written, the headline numbers misrepresent the occlusion metric.
  4. [Section 4 and Section 5.3] All ground-truth labels for training, testing, and accuracy reporting are generated by the Voronoi-based discrete collision method described in Section 4.1. The paper does not validate this method against an exact continuous accessibility computation or against physical machining. Thus the reported 'accuracy' measures agreement with an approximate geometric pipeline, not verified physical accessibility. For the paper's manufacturing claims to be credible, the authors should validate the label generator on a subset of shapes against a higher-fidelity reference or explicitly scope the claims to the surrogate task.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The reference for Fibonacci sphere sampling cites Vorobiev 2002, a book on Fibonacci numbers; a citation to the actual sphere sampling algorithm would be more appropriate.
  2. [Section 5.2] The 'initial learning rate of 1.0' for SGD appears unusually high; please verify that this is not a typo (e.g., 0.1) and clarify the learning rate schedule.
  3. [Section 5.4] The comparison with GraphSAGE is presented only qualitatively through Figure 11; a quantitative table listing Acc_i, F1_i, Acc_o, and F1_o for the GraphSAGE baseline would strengthen the claim of superiority.
  4. [Section 5.5] The volume accessibility analysis reports 'accuracy of up to 97.9%' without specifying the dataset, metric, or cutter parameters; please provide these details.
  5. [Table 2 caption] The meaning of the 'Cutter' column is ambiguous; it likely indicates the model variant (baseline or with cutter module), but this should be stated explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: DeepMill is trained and tested on labels from the same Voronoi collision pipeline, so its accuracies measure self-consistency with that approximate generator rather than physical machining validity.

full rationale

DeepMill is a supervised surrogate trained on labels produced by the Voronoi/collision pipeline of Section 4; the reported accuracies measure agreement with that pipeline, not with physical machining. That is a benchmark-validity limitation, not equation-level circularity. The network is trained on 5K CAD shapes and evaluated on held-out CAD/freeform/complex sets, so the accuracies are not forced by the training set. The self-citation of [Zhong et al. 2023] supplies the label-generation method, but the method is described in the paper (Eqs. 5-7, Fig. 4) and is a published external algorithm; it does not smuggle in DeepMill's output. No 'prediction' is algebraically identical to a fitted input. The main caveats are: (i) Eq. (6) samples only m=150 cutter directions with no convergence check; (ii) Section 4.1 requires the shortest Voronoi edge to exceed 2*CR to avoid missed collisions while Fig. 4(d)'s caption requires spacing smaller than CR, and neither condition is verified on the datasets; (iii) the abstract's 88.7% 'accuracy in identifying occlusion regions' is Table 1's F1_o for Freeform(15K), not an accuracy. These are correctness/reporting issues outside the circularity definition. Score 2 reflects the one self-citation in the label-generation chain; the central learning claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical approximation claim, so the ledger is dominated by design choices in the label-generation pipeline and the training protocol. The most consequential items are the 150-direction collision sampling, the top-10 percent occlusion cutoff, and the unverified Voronoi cell-spacing assumption, which together define what ground truth means. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Sampled cutter directions m = 150
    Eq. (6) quantifies accessibility over a finite set D of 150 Fibonacci-sphere directions instead of the continuous hemisphere; both training and test labels depend on this choice.
  • Detection-box margin sigma = 5
    Section 4.1 sets sigma = 5 for the pre-collision cylinder radius FR+sigma; if too small, valid colliding sites are skipped during label generation.
  • Occlusion-point cutoff = top 10% of beta_i
    Section 4.2 defines occlusion points as the top 10 percent by blocking score; this arbitrary threshold defines the l_O labels used for training and evaluation.
  • Shape size filter = minimum bounding-box edge 80 mm
    Section 5.1 excludes shapes smaller than 80 mm to avoid invalid data, which changes the training and test distribution and limits the generalization claim.
  • Cutter parameter training ranges = CR in [1,2], FR in [5,100], CH in [0.1,10.1], FH in [0.1,10.1]
    Section 5.1 trains the network only in these ranges; extreme-cutter test sets required adding 3K+ extra training shapes to reach 95.8% accuracy, so the model does not freely extrapolate.
  • Voronoi site density = about 7K sites per training shape, plus 15K and 100K test variants
    Label correctness depends on cell spacing staying below 2*CR, but sampling density is set by mesh resolution rather than by cutter radius.
  • Network hyperparameters = octree depth 5; channels [32,32,64,128,256] and [256,256,128,96,96]; LR 1.0; 1500 epochs; batch 128
    Section 5.2 gives these values without a reported sensitivity study or tuning search, so the effect of these choices on the headline numbers is unknown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 150 sampled cutter directions in D are a sufficient proxy for the continuous set of all cutter orientations.
    Eq. (6) labels a point inaccessible only if it collides in every one of the m=150 Fibonacci-sphere directions; if a real accessible direction lies between samples, the label is wrong.
  • domain assumption The Voronoi cell-spacing condition (shortest edge greater than 2*CR) holds in every generated shape and prevents undetected cutter penetration.
    Section 4.1 states this is crucial for the discrete collision test, but the paper does not report verifying it on the ABC and Thingi10K datasets.
  • domain assumption A ball-end cutter with four parameters and an infinitely long shaft space represents the tools of interest.
    Section 4.1 models the cutter as a hemisphere plus two cylinders and sets P_D to infinity; this excludes other tool shapes and finite holders.
  • domain assumption Labels from the Section 4 geometric pipeline are the ground truth for accessibility.
    Training, test, and scoring all use the same discrete collision routine; physical machining validation or an independent exact solver is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeepMill: Neural Accessibility Learning for Subtractive Manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKEAJEGD

@misc{pith2026250206093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeepMill: Neural Accessibility Learning for Subtractive Manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKEAJEGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06093}
}
read the original abstract

Manufacturability is vital for product design and production, with accessibility being a key element, especially in subtractive manufacturing. Traditional methods for geometric accessibility analysis are time-consuming and struggle with scalability, while existing deep learning approaches in manufacturability analysis often neglect geometric challenges in accessibility and are limited to specific model types. In this paper, we introduce DeepMill, the first neural framework designed to accurately and efficiently predict inaccessible and occlusion regions under varying machining tool parameters, applicable to both CAD and freeform models. To address the challenges posed by cutter collisions and the lack of extensive training datasets, we construct a cutter-aware dual-head octree-based convolutional neural network (O-CNN) and generate an inaccessible and occlusion regions analysis dataset with a variety of cutter sizes for network training. Experiments demonstrate that DeepMill achieves 94.7% accuracy in predicting inaccessible regions and 88.7% accuracy in identifying occlusion regions, with an average processing time of 0.04 seconds for complex geometries. Based on the outcomes, DeepMill implicitly captures both local and global geometric features, as well as the complex interactions between cutters and intricate 3D models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose an octree-based neural network for cutter accessibility and severe occlusion detection on arbitrary meshes. Compared to traditional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparisons with GraphSAGE. 𝑀 is converted into a graph, with nodes representing mesh vertices and edges representing topological con￾nections of them. Similar to O-CNN, initial node features include vertex co￾ordinates and normals. Node features are propagated and updated through successive convolutions on neighboring nodes. shared. The predicted results 𝑦ˆ 𝑖 𝑗 for 𝑠𝑖 ∈ 𝑆 are denoted as: 𝑦ˆ 𝑖 𝑗 = header𝑗 (𝑓 ′ 4 ), … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DeepMill’s network architecture. The input mesh is converted into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of inaccessible point detection. Orange represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of occlusion point calculation. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The gallery of DeepMill prediction results. On the left are CAD shapes, and on the right are freeform shapes. For each row of shapes, the first and third [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of DeepMill prediction results with extreme size of cutter. After adding the dataset generated with extreme cutters to the training set, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Testing of DeepMill on complex shapes. For each mesh, the left side shows the prediction results from DeepMill, while the right side displays the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of cutter module concatenation methods. The left and right show the prediction accuracy of inaccessible points and the F1 score of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the effect of cutter length on inaccessible regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison with SAGE. DeepMill shows significantly better predic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of accessibility analysis within the volume. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Can any model be fabricated? Inverse operation based planning for hybrid additive-subtractive manufacturing

    cs.GR 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A backward nullification algorithm proves that any stable voxel model can be fabricated by interleaved additive and subtractive operations.

  2. INF-3DP: Implicit Neural Fields for Collision-Free Multi-Axis 3D Printing

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single implicit-neural-field pipeline unifies toolpath generation and collision-free motion planning for multi-axis 3D printing, claiming dramatic speedups and validated by physical prints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [9]

    Algo- rithms for computing global accessibility cones. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 3, 3 (2003), 200–209. Gershon Elber

    work page 2003

  2. [11]

    Computer Aided Geometric Design 62 (2018), 263–275

    Learning localized features in 3D CAD models for manufacturability analysis of drilled holes. Computer Aided Geometric Design 62 (2018), 263–275. Benjamin Graham, Martin Engelcke, and Laurens van der Maaten

    work page 2018

  3. [12]

    PCT: Point cloud transformer. Comput. Vis. Media 7, 2 (2021). Satyandra K Gupta, William C Regli, Diganta Das, and Dana S Nau

    work page 2021

  4. [13]

    Research in Engineering Design 9 (1997), 168–

    Automated manufacturability analysis: a survey. Research in Engineering Design 9 (1997), 168–

    work page 1997

  5. [15]

    Automated manufacturability analysis for conceptual design in new product development. (2017). Bo Huang, Rui Huang, Xiuling Li, Hang Zhang, Zhen Wang, Kai He, and Shusheng Zhang. 2024b. Hierarchical Graph Neural Network for Manufacturability Analysis. SSRN (2024). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5065158 Yuming Huang, Yuhu Guo, Renbo Su, Xingjian Han, Junhao ...

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5065158 2017

  6. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 (2015)

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 (2015). Benjamin Jones, Dalton Hildreth, Duowen Chen, Ilya Baran, Vladimir G Kim, and Adriana Schulz

    arXiv 2015

  7. [17]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 40, 6 (2021), 1–18

    Automate: A dataset and learning approach for automatic mating of cad assemblies. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 40, 6 (2021), 1–18. Anay Joshi and Sam Anand

    work page 2021

  8. [18]

    Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017), 578–589

    Geometric complexity based process selection for hybrid manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 10 (2017), 578–589. Sanjay Joshi and Tien-Chien Chang

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [25]

    The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 85 (2016), 1887–1900

    Accessible regions of tool orientations in multi-axis milling of blisks with a ball-end mill. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 85 (2016), 1887–1900. Changqing Liu, Yingguang Li, Sen Jiang, Zhongyu Li, and Ke Xu

    2016

  2. [26]

    Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 234, 3 (2020), 421–430

    A sequence planning method for five-axis hybrid manufacturing of complex structural parts. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 234, 3 (2020), 421–430. Tao Liu, Tianyu Zhang, Yongxue Chen, Yuming Huang, and Charlie CL Wang

    2020

  3. [27]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 4 (2024), 1–15

    Neural slicer for multi-axis 3D printing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 4 (2024), 1–15. Ali Mahdavi-Amiri, Fenggen Yu, Haisen Zhao, Adriana Schulz, and Hao Zhang

    2024

  4. [28]

    ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 6 (2020), 1–15

    VDAC: volume decompose-and-carve for subtractive manufacturing. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 6 (2020), 1–15. Liane Makatura, Michael Foshey, Bohan Wang, Felix Hähnlein, Pingchuan Ma, Bolei Deng, Megan Tjandrasuwita, Andrew Spielberg, Crystal Owens, Peter Yichen Che...

    2020

  5. [29]

    Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (2024), 1–11

    Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Supported Machining: A Review and Insights for Future Research. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C (2024), 1–11. Daniel Maturana and Sebastian Scherer. 2015a. VoxNet: A 3D convolutional neural network for real...

    2024

  6. [31]

    In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18 . Springer, 234–241. Syaimak Abdul Shukor and...

    2015

  7. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017). Nicolai N Vorobiev

    2017 arXiv

  8. [36]

    ACM Trans

    OctFormer: Octree-based Transformers for 3D Point Clouds. ACM Trans. Graph. (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 42, 4 (2023). Peng-Shuai Wang, Yang Liu, Yu-Xiao Guo, Chun-Yu Sun, and Xin Tong. 2017a. O-CNN: Octree-based convolutional neural networks for 3D shape analysis. ACM Trans. Graph. (Proc...

    2023

  9. [37]

    Computer-Aided Design 26, 1 (1994), 6–16

    Visibility maps and spherical algorithms. Computer-Aided Design 26, 1 (1994), 6–16. Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao

    1994

  10. [38]

    Journal of Manufacturing Systems 67 (2023), 57–67

    Automated manufacturability analysis and machining process selection using deep generative model and Siamese neural networks. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 67 (2023), 57–67. Xijun Zhang, Dianming Chu, Xinyue Zhao, Chenyu Gao, Lingxiao Lu, Yan He, and Wenjuan Bai

    2023

  11. [39]

    Ying Zhang, Sheng Yang, and Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

    Machine learning-driven 3D printing: A review.Applied Materials Today 39 (2024), 102306. Ying Zhang, Sheng Yang, and Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

    2024

  12. [40]

    The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 110 (2020), 57–78

    Manufacturability analysis of metal laser-based powder bed fusion additive manufacturing—a survey. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 110 (2020), 57–78. Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip Torr, and Vladlen Koltun

    2020

  13. [41]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14

    DSCarver: decompose-and-spiral-carve for subtractive manufacturing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14. Fanchao Zhong, Haisen Zhao, Haochen Li, Xin Yan, Jikai Liu, Baoquan Chen, and Lin Lu

    2018

  14. [42]

    ACM Trans

    VASCO: Volume and Surface Co-Decomposition for Hybrid Manufacturing. ACM Trans. Graph. 42, 6 (2023), 1–17. Qingnan Zhou and Alec Jacobson

    2023

  15. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04797 (2016)

    Thingi10K: A Dataset of 10,000 3D-Printing Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04797 (2016). ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February

    2016 arXiv

  16. [44]

    The red points represent inaccessible sampling points

    Illustration of accessibility analysis within the volume. The red points represent inaccessible sampling points. On the top, the results pre- dicted by DeepMill are shown, and on the bottom, the results obtained by the geometric method are displayed. ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 1,...

    2025

  17. [1988]

    SB Kailash, YF Zhang, and Jerry YH Fuh

    Graph-based heuristics for recognition of machined features from a 3D solid model.Computer-aided design 20, 2 (1988), 58–66. SB Kailash, YF Zhang, and Jerry YH Fuh

    1988

  18. [1994]

    Computer-Aided Design 26, 11 (1994), 796–802

    Accessibility in 5-axis milling environment. Computer-Aided Design 26, 11 (1994), 796–802. Sambit Ghadai, Aditya Balu, Soumik Sarkar, and Adarsh Krishnamurthy

    1994

  19. [1995]

    Computer-Aided Design 27, 10 (1995), 715–729

    2-phase approach to global tool interfer- ence avoidance in 5-axis machining. Computer-Aided Design 27, 10 (1995), 715–729. Yangyan Li, Rui Bu, Mingchao Sun, Wei Wu, Xinhan Di, and Baoquan Chen

    1995

  20. [1997]

    Computer-Aided Design 29, 9 (1997), 657–669

    C-space approach to tool- path generation for die and mould machining. Computer-Aided Design 29, 9 (1997), 657–669. Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 2019a. 4D spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In IEEE Computer Vision and Pa...

    1997

  21. [1998]

    In Proceedings

    Accessibility analysis in 5-axis ma- chining of sculptured surfaces. In Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 98CH36146) , Vol

    1998

  22. [2001]

    Computer-Aided Design 33, 8 (2001), 605–617

    A volume decomposition approach to machining feature extraction of casting and forging components. Computer-Aided Design 33, 8 (2001), 605–617. Olivier Kerbrat, Pascal Mognol, and Jean-Yves Hascoët

    2001

  23. [2003]

    Computer-Aided Design 35, 4 (2003), 359–374

    Collision- free finishing toolpaths from visibility data. Computer-Aided Design 35, 4 (2003), 359–374. Aditya Balu, Sambit Ghadai, Soumik Sarkar, and Adarsh Krishnamurthy

    2003

  24. [2006]

    Machinability analysis for 3-axis flat end milling. (2006). Yongshou Liang, Dinghua Zhang, Junxue Ren, Zezhong C Chen, and Yingying Xu

    2006

  25. [2009]

    International Journal of Production Research 47, 5 (2009), 1369–1390

    Manufacturability analysis system: issues and future trends. International Journal of Production Research 47, 5 (2009), 1369–1390. Mohsen Soori, Behrooz Arezoo, and Roza Dastres

    2009

  26. [2010]

    In Proceedings of the 2010 International Con- ference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Dhaka, Bangladesh , Vol

    A TOPSIS method-based approach to machine tool selection. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Con- ference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Dhaka, Bangladesh , Vol

    2010

  27. [2011]

    Computers in Industry 62, 7 (2011), 684–692

    A new DFM approach to combine machining and additive manufacturing. Computers in Industry 62, 7 (2011), 684–692. Yong Se Kim

    2011

  28. [2015]

    Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2, 4 (2015), 197–205

    Collision-free tool orientation optimization in five-axis machining of bladed disk. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 2, 4 (2015), 197–205. Niechen Chen and Matthew C Frank

    2015

  29. [2016]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016). Sebastian Koch, Albert Matveev, Zhongshi Jiang, Francis Williams, Alexey Artemov, Evgeny Burnaev, Marc Alexa, Denis Zorin, and Daniele Panozzo

    2016 arXiv

  30. [2017]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017). Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun

    2017

  31. [2018]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14

    Support-free volume printing by multi-axis motion. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14. Savinder Dhaliwal, Satyandra K Gupta, Jun Huang, and Alok Priyadarshi

    2018

  32. [2020]

    Computer-Aided Design 118 (2020), 102759

    Manufacturability analysis and process planning for additive and subtractive hybrid manufacturing of Quasi-rotational parts with columnar features. Computer-Aided Design 118 (2020), 102759. Li Chen, Ke Xu, and Kai Tang

    2020

  33. [2021]

    Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 143, 8 (2021), 081007

    Design for manufacturing: Geometric manufacturability evaluation for five-axis milling. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 143, 8 (2021), 081007. Byoung K Choi, Dae H Kim, and Robert B Jerard

    2021

  34. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11819 (2022)

    Closed-loop control of direct ink writing via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11819 (2022). Charles R. Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2017a. PointNet: Deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. In IEEE Computer ACM Tr...

    2022 arXiv

  35. [2023]

    Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023), 100009

    Machine learning and artificial intelligence in CNC machine tools, a review. Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics 2 (2023), 100009. Antonia J Spyridi and Aristides AG Requicha

    2023

  36. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05426 (2024)

    AI in Manufacturing: Market Analysis and Opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05426 (2024). Vijay Manikrao Athawale and Shankar Chakraborty

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.