Agent-based assistance for engineering change management: An implementation prototype
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
Computer-aided design organizations worry much about the management of the communication between the various multidisciplinary teams working on the same project. The good management of this communication is very important for the success of the engineering change management process. Each discipline must approve or reject a change request according to its constraints and inform the other disciplines involved. Currently, the communication between the various disciplines is performed using messages. The approval or the rejection of a change request can be made only if human experts representing these disciplines meet and negotiate, which in turn can be very time consuming. Organizations thus, have a great need for a system which could automate the communication between experts and assist them in making sound engineering change decisions. Such a system could also help by reducing the time needed to verify an engineering change request therefore accelerating the production start-up and the time to market. This paper proposes an agent-based system that can manage the engineering change requests efficiently. Actually, the proposed system checks if the engineering change request does not create any inconsistency with the constraints stemming from the various disciplines. It also assists experts in making decisions by proposing alternative solutions. Each discipline is represented by an expert agent. When an inconsistency is discovered, a negotiation process among expert agents is launched. The system proposed could be easily connected to various CAD tools.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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