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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Support Vector Regression Machines
Drucker, H., Burges, C. J. C., Kaufman, L., Smola, A. J., & Vapnik, V. N. (1996) · Cited by 4,658
Advanced monitoring of machining operations
Teti, R., Jemielniak, K., O’Donnell, G., & Dornfeld, D. (2010) · CIRP Annals · doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2010.05.010 · Cited by 1,354
Taylor, F. W. (1907) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican01121907-25942supp · Cited by 843
Tool Condition Monitoring (TCM) — The Status of Research and Industrial Application
Byrne, G., Dornfeld, D., Inasaki, I., Ketteler, G., König, W., & Teti, R. (1995) · CIRP Annals · doi:10.1016/s0007-8506(07)60503-4 · Cited by 737
The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection
Bevilacqua, M., & Braglia, M. (2000) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00047-8 · Cited by 721
Mining data with random forests: A survey and results of new tests
Verikas, A., Gelzinis, A., & Bacauskiene, M. (2011) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2010.08.011 · Cited by 719
Özel, T., & Karpat, Y. (2005) · International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture · doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.09.007 · Cited by 698
Cited by
Deep learning for smart manufacturing: Methods and applications
Wang, J., Ma, Y., Zhang, L., Gao, R. X., & Wu, D. (2018) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.01.003 · Cited by 1,740
Self-citationKamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Gawankar, S. A. (2018) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009 · Cited by 1,440
Artificial Intelligence in Advanced Manufacturing: Current Status and Future Outlook
Arinez, J. F., Chang, Q., Gao, R. X., Xu, C., & Zhang, J. (2020) · Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.4047855 · Cited by 584
Self-citationSmart manufacturing: Characteristics, technologies and enabling factors
Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture · doi:10.1177/0954405417736547 · Cited by 560
Prediction of surface roughness in extrusion-based additive manufacturing with machine learning
Li, Z., Zhang, Z., Shi, J., & Wu, D. (2019) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2019.01.004 · Cited by 432
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, D., Jennings, C., Terpenny, J., Gao, R. X., & Kumara, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
- Publisher
- ASME International
- 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.