Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 677

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Algorithms for Smart Manufacturing: Tool Wear Prediction Using Random Forests

Open access
Wu, Dazhong, Jennings, Connor, Terpenny, Janis, Gao, Robert X., Kumara, Soundar·2017·Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Abstract

Manufacturers have faced an increasing need for the development of predictive models that predict mechanical failures and the remaining useful life (RUL) of manufacturing systems or components. Classical model-based or physics-based prognostics often require an in-depth physical understanding of the system of interest to develop closed-form mathematical models. However, prior knowledge of system behavior is not always available, especially for complex manufacturing systems and processes. To complement model-based prognostics, data-driven methods have been increasingly applied to machinery prognostics and maintenance management, transforming legacy manufacturing systems into smart manufacturing systems with artificial intelligence. While previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of data-driven methods, most of these prognostic methods are based on classical machine learning techniques, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and support vector regression (SVR). With the rapid advancement in artificial intelligence, various machine learning algorithms have been developed and widely applied in many engineering fields. The objective of this research is to introduce a random forests (RFs)-based prognostic method for tool wear prediction as well as compare the performance of RFs with feed-forward back propagation (FFBP) ANNs and SVR. Specifically, the performance of FFBP ANNs, SVR, and RFs are compared using an experimental data collected from 315 milling tests. Experimental results have shown that RFs can generate more accurate predictions than FFBP ANNs with a single hidden layer and SVR.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1115/1.4036350

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 677

Metadata

Authors
Wu, D., Jennings, C., Terpenny, J., Gao, R. X., & Kumara, S.
Venue
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Published
2017-04-18
Volume
139
Issue
7
ISSN
  • 1087-1357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-8935
OpenAlex
W2601486059
Cited by
677
References
33
FWCI
31.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Algorithms for Smart Manufacturing: Tool Wear Prediction Using Random Forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1115/1.4036350
The paper
Wu, D., Jennings, C., Terpenny, J., Gao, R. X., & Kumara, S. (2017). A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Algorithms for Smart Manufacturing: Tool Wear Prediction Using Random Forests. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036350

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.