One of the main issues hindering the adoption of parts produced using laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) in safety-critical applications is the inconsistencies in quality levels. Furthermore, the complicated nature of the L-PBF process makes optimizing process parameters to reduce these defects experimentally challenging and computationally expensive. To address this issue, sensor-based monitoring of the L-PBF process has gained increasing attention in recent years. Moreover, integrating machine learning (ML) techniques to analyze the collected sensor data has significantly improved the defect detection process aiming to apply online control. This article provides a comprehensive review of the latest applications of ML for in situ monitoring and control of the L-PBF process. First, the main L-PBF process signatures are described, and the suitable sensor and specifications that can monitor each signature are reviewed. Next, the most common ML learning approaches and algorithms employed in L-PBFs are summarized. Then, an extensive comparison of the different ML algorithms used for defect detection in the L-PBF process is presented. The article then describes the ultimate goal of applying ML algorithms for in situ sensors, which is closing the loop and taking online corrective actions. Finally, some current challenges and ideas for future work are also described to provide a perspective on the future directions for research dealing with using ML applications for defect detection and control for the L-PBF processes.

Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) can fabricate intricate metal components but is prone to defects, such as porosity and cracks, that degrade performance. We present an in situ monitoring framework that fuses structure-borne acoustic emission (AE) and coaxial two-color pyrometry acquired synchronously at 1 MHz. Modality-specific encoders are pretrained separately, their latent representations are exported, and a lightweight feature-level fusion classifier with two binary heads predicts crack-like and porosity-like indications. Evaluation uses a held-out grouped experiment/build-machine-part split with independent Archimedes density and micro-CT ground truth. On the held-out test set, the fused model achieved F1 = 0.974 for crack-like detection and F1 = 0.987 for porosity-like detection, with AUROC = 0.998 and 0.993, respectively. Recall was 1.00 for both heads, corresponding to false-positive rates of 11.18% for crack-like and 0.945% for porosity-like indications. These results support synchronized AE-pyrometry fusion as a promising high-sensitivity in situ screening approach for LPBF. A later matched within-framework ablation campaign was also performed under stricter checkpoint-screening rules to compare AE + PY + Aux, AE + PY, AE-only, and PY-only variants under a common grouped-split protocol. Together, these results support multimodal monitoring while highlighting the need for explicit coupon/geometry-stratified reporting and for separately architecture-optimized unimodal baselines.