In-situ process monitoring for defect detection in wire-arc additive manufacturing: an agentic AI approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09889v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:36:37 GMT
• Title: In-situ process monitoring for defect detection in wire-arc additive manufacturing: an agentic AI approach
• Abstract summary: We propose an agentic AI framework for in-situ process monitoring for defect detection in wire-arc additive manufacturing.<n>A processing agent is developed based on welder process signals, such as current and voltage, and a monitoring agent is developed based on acoustic data collected during the process.<n>A multi-agent framework is demonstrated in which the processing and monitoring agents are orchestrated together for parallel decision-making.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: AI agents are being increasingly deployed across a wide range of real-world applications. In this paper, we propose an agentic AI framework for in-situ process monitoring for defect detection in wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM). The autonomous agent leverages a WAAM process monitoring dataset and a trained classification tool to build AI agents and uses a large language model (LLM) for in-situ process monitoring decision-making for defect detection. A processing agent is developed based on welder process signals, such as current and voltage, and a monitoring agent is developed based on acoustic data collected during the process. Both agents are tasked with identifying porosity defects from processing and monitoring signals, respectively. Ground truth X-ray computed tomography (XCT) data are used to develop classification tools for both the processing and monitoring agents. Furthermore, a multi-agent framework is demonstrated in which the processing and monitoring agents are orchestrated together for parallel decision-making on the given task of defect classification. Evaluation metrics are proposed to determine the efficacy of both individual agents, the combined single-agent, and the coordinated multi-agent system. The multi-agent configuration outperforms all individual-agent counterparts, achieving a decision accuracy of 91.6% and an F1 score of 0.821 on decided runs, across 15 independent runs, and a reasoning quality score of 3.74 out of 5. These in-situ process monitoring agents hold significant potential for autonomous real-time process monitoring and control toward building qualified parts for WAAM and other additive manufacturing processes.

Related papers

• Towards Autonomous and Auditable Medical Imaging Model Development [53.326510777116766]
  We introduce AMID, an autonomous multi-agent framework for medical imaging model development.<n>AMID first proposes Data-Conditioned Method Planning, which refines coarse task-level search spaces into executable, parallelizable method lanes.<n>It then develops Verification-Guided Two-Stage Optimization, moving from broad early exploration of diverse method lanes to selective exploitation of promising candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T00:54:06Z)
• Perception, Verdict, and Evolution: Hindsight-Driven Self-Refining Forensics Agent for AI-Generated Image Detection [80.15317858033534]
  ForeAgent is an agentic forensics framework for AI-generated image detection with iterative self-evolution.<n>ForeAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Chameleon benchmark, reaching 82.18% accuracy.<n>ForeAgent produces more consistent and causally grounded reasoning compared to GPT-5 and GPT-5-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T02:59:33Z)
• Monitoring Agentic Systems Before They're Reliable [0.7422381022274628]
  Agentic systems entering production typically operate as partially integrated assemblies where structural defects, not task-level errors, dominate the failure landscape.<n>We present a monitoring and triage methodology that decomposes agentic system evaluation into three dimensions (quality, suitability, efficiency) at three monitoring scopes.<n>Findings are routed through severity classification adapted from FMEA, concentrating human attention on the subset that warrants investigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:01:53Z)
• Towards a Virtual Neuroscientist: Autonomous Neuroimaging Analysis via Multi-Agent Collaboration [53.772014300855375]
  We introduce NIAgent, a multi-agent system for autonomous end-to-end neuroimaging analysis.<n>Unlike conventional flat tool-calling agents, NIAgent adopts a code-centric execution paradigm.<n>We propose a hierarchical verification framework for autonomous quality control, integrating cohort-level metric screening with agentic visual inspection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T06:30:19Z)
• AgentRaft: Automated Detection of Data Over-Exposure in LLM Agents [40.88941407116349]
  We present AgentRaft, the first automated framework for detecting Data Over-Exposure (DOE) risks in Large Language Model (LLM) agents.<n>We evaluate AgentRaft on a testing environment of 6,675 real-world agent tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T09:40:54Z)
• Constrained Process Maps for Multi-Agent Generative AI Workflows [10.871587311621974]
  Large language model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used in regulated settings such as compliance and due diligence.<n>We introduce a multi-agent system formalized as a finite-horizon Markov Decision Process (MDP) with a directed acyclic structure.<n>Epistemic uncertainty is quantified at the agent level using Monte Carlo estimation, while system-level uncertainty is captured by the MDP's termination in either an automated labeled state or a human-review state.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T12:32:11Z)
• The Bitter Lesson of Diffusion Language Models for Agentic Workflows: A Comprehensive Reality Check [54.08619694620588]
  We present a comprehensive evaluation of dLLMs across two distinct agentic paradigms: Embodied Agents and Tool-Calling Agents.<n>Our results on Agentboard and BFCL reveal a "bitter lesson": current dLLMs fail to serve as reliable agentic backbones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T11:45:39Z)
• Beyond Task Completion: An Assessment Framework for Evaluating Agentic AI Systems [0.0]
  Recent advances in agentic AI have shifted the focus from standalone Large Language Models to integrated systems.<n>We propose an end-to-end Agent Assessment Framework with four evaluation pillars encompassing LLMs, Memory, Tools, and Environment.<n>We validate the framework on a representative Autonomous CloudOps use case, where experiments reveal behavioral deviations by conventional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T18:17:40Z)
• AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production [4.031479494871582]
  We present Agent, the first evaluation framework designed specifically for post-deployment monitoring and reasoning of agentic pipeline.<n>Agent achieves state-of-the-art results on key metrics, while uncovering critical issues missed in human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T05:59:04Z)
• MCP-Orchestrated Multi-Agent System for Automated Disinformation Detection [84.75972919995398]
  This paper presents a multi-agent system that uses relation extraction to detect disinformation in news articles.<n>The proposed Agentic AI system combines four agents: (i) a machine learning agent (logistic regression), (ii) a Wikipedia knowledge check agent, and (iv) a web-scraped data analyzer.<n>Results demonstrate that the multi-agent ensemble achieves 95.3% accuracy with an F1 score of 0.964, significantly outperforming individual agents and traditional approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T19:14:48Z)
• PIPA: A Unified Evaluation Protocol for Diagnosing Interactive Planning Agents [12.052972947563424]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate agent performance based on task completion as a proxy for overall effectiveness.<n>We propose PIPA, a unified evaluation protocol that conceptualizes the behavioral process of interactive task planning agents.<n>Our analyses show that agents excel in different behavioral stages, with user satisfaction shaped by both outcomes and intermediate behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T21:27:10Z)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  We introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)
• On the Complexity of Multi-Agent Decision Making: From Learning in Games to Partial Monitoring [105.13668993076801]
  A central problem in the theory of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is to understand what structural conditions and algorithmic principles lead to sample-efficient learning guarantees. We study this question in a general framework for interactive decision making with multiple agents. We show that characterizing the statistical complexity for multi-agent decision making is equivalent to characterizing the statistical complexity of single-agent decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T06:46:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.