## 1 Introduction  
The introduction of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) technology by EOS in 1994 was a consistent technological development that progressively evolved into laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) technology referred to as powder bed fusion-laser melting (PBF-LM) in ISO/ASTM 52900 [1] as OEMs successfully adapted their selective laser sintering (SLS) technologies to take advantage of the high-power fiber lasers available in the late 1990s. The ability to melt metal alloys of interest and create custom parts with a high degree of geometrical complexity that otherwise could not have been produced through traditional means led to many technological advancements. A host of technological advancements were made, not just in printing technology and the associated hardware but also in the equally important ecosystem of software tools supporting the manufacturing of viable industry-grade parts [2; 3; 4]. For the early commercial adopters of the L-PBF technology, primarily in medical applications, the focus was predominantly on printing novel organic designs of relatively smaller sizes and a simpler geometric complexity [5]. Success was achieved in most cases in an iterative experimental manner. The applications were selected such that the increased performance and the benefits of the new additively made product over traditional variants would justify the higher development and production costs. Subsequently, within the last five to ten years, technological advances in metal printing have facilitated the exponential growth of L-PBF AM in numerous sectors, including medicine, aviation, energy, oil and gas, and energy. Industry has made substantial investments in the development of industrial applications where the printed components were progressively more complex, large, and required to adhere to more rigorous quality and functionality standards. Following that, it became imperative to incorporate design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) principles into the product design process flow. This was further supported by the utilization of multiphysics simulation software for performance validation and shape and topology optimization, in order to attain product differentiation at a competitive price. In addition to the main design and printer loading considerations, the cost structure on the production side is significantly influenced by the ability to perform a high-resolution optimization of the print process parameter set for a specific type of machine and material. This optimization process aims to identify a set of optimal parameters that maximize the production throughput while delivering a product with a microstructure, density, defect density, and surface finish that require minimal post-processing. To achieve that, primarily, a robust and stable production process needs to be established by determining the limits of the L-BPF printability zone in the laser power (P)-scanning speed (V) variable space for a particular material and printer type [3; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10]. This is necessary to avoid the formation of defects, primarily a lack of fusion and balling [11; 12; 13] and keynbe phenomena associated with higher energy inputs [14; 15]. Once the limits have been determined without conservatively over-restricting the usable printability region, the second step is developing a set of optimal parameters within this space. This identification of the printability region [16] turns out to be a process that requires a traditionally laborious, time-consuming, and expensive experimental effort. Furthermore, time and cost constraints frequently limit the resolution with which the variable space is surveyed [17; 18] (i.e., the number of specimens used to evaluate the quality of the printing process). Notwithstanding this, the growing demand for L-PBF to enhance process productivity has resulted in a heightened frequency of parameter developments and the determination of the printability region of the material.