Product Design Retrieval by Matching Bills of Materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new automatic design retrieval method that identifies the legacy product design most similar to a new one is proposed. Matching phylogenetic trees has been utilized in biological science for decades and is referred to as “tree reconciliation.” A new application of this approach in manufacturing is presented where legacy designs are retrieved based on reconciliation of trees representing products bill of materials (BOM). A product BOM is a structured tree, which represents its components and their hierarchal relationships; hence, it captures the contents and structure of assembled products. Making use of data associated with the retrieved designs also helps speed-up other downstream planning activities such as process planning, hence improving planning efficiency. A chemical processing centrifugal pump is used as a case study for illustration. The results obtained using the proposed method is compared with those recently published on BOM trees matching for further analysis and verification. This novel method is less computationally complex than available state-of-the-art algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it