MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409791352 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-338

Research on the Impact of Multi-Agent Based Systems on the Development of Intelligent Manufacturing

2025· article· en· W4409791352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManufacturing engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringProcess managementBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agent technology is widely used in intelligent manufacturing and digital workshop as a new method to solve complex, dynamic and distributed arti icial intelligence application problems.This paper irstly summarizes the application steps of Agent technology in 3 aspects of modeling, simulation and monitoring of intelligent manufacturing system on the basis of a brief description of multi-agent system.Then, based on reinforcement learning theory, a multi-agent collaborative algorithm SRL_M3DDPG based on state representation learning is proposed.Finally, the algorithm model is tested and applied to the smart shop scheduling problem.The learning curve of the SRL_M3DDPG algorithm in the example remains relatively stable after the 3400th round, and the maximum completion time of the scheduling is 29.Comparing with other composite scheduling rules, the delay rate of this paper's algorithmic model is the lowest, which is only 15.47%, which indicates that the algorithm is able to signi icantly reduce the delay rate of the workpiece.In addition, this paper's algorithm achieves better results in adaptive intelligent manufacturing workshop scheduling, inding the shortest machining completion time of 221 unit time, which can adapt to the dynamic intelligent manufacturing workshop environment.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicIndustrial Technology and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207