Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quality prediction in metal additive manufacturing (AM) has conventionally relied on data-driven models that map process parameters to defect classes or quality metrics. However, these models often fail to generalize across different machines, materials, and process regimes. The emerging knowledge-driven approach based on large language models (LLMs) can interpret literature and expert guidance, yet struggles to deliver quantitative decisions tied to part-specific parameter sets. To bridge this gap, we propose AM-Agent, a hybrid neuro-symbolic LLM agent framework that unifies data-driven prediction and domain knowledge through Model Context Protocol tools organized as Knowledge Services (KS) and Data-driven Prediction Services (DPS). KS integrates literature-based static knowledge with a dynamic digital twin (DT) context powered by Asset Administration Shell, enabling real-time queries of printer status and historical build records through LLM-DT interaction. DPS exposes melt-pool regressors and defect classifiers using a model-per-condition design, where the AM-Agent adaptively selects the appropriate pretrained predictor at runtime based on current working conditions. To harmonize the outputs of DPS and KS, a reliability-weighted fusion strategy is proposed to resolve conflicts by dynamically weighting numerical uncertainty against semantic confidence. The proposed AM-Agent is intended as a part-specific, pre-built decision support system for human operators during process planning. It is able to select suitable printers, forecast quality risks, and recommend parameter adjustments. Statistical experiments show that this neuro-symbolic integration significantly outperforms both purely data-driven and LLM-only baselines under domain shifts, validating that hybridizing neural perception with symbolic knowledge provides a promising path toward generalizable and interpretable AM quality control. The full project repository is publicly available on GitHub.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: