MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge Assistant for Joint Utility: A Multi-Agent LLM-Driven Conversational System for Automated Task Execution

2025· article· W7133334912 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)WorkflowJoint (building)Code (set theory)SoftwareNatural languageTerminal (telecommunication)ArchitectureSystem integrationNatural language understanding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into developer workflows has redefined automation, yet most systems remain limited to executing direct terminal commands. A critical limitation in existing tools is the lack of adaptive AI systems that cater to both technical and non-technical users. Knowledge Assistant for Joint Utility advances this capability by enabling not only command execution but also intelligent explanation, code comprehension, and handling of complex, context-dependent tasks through file analysis. The system functions as a fully embedded LLM within the terminal environment. This assistant introduces a modular, agent-based architecture that supports debugging, screen processing, code editing, web-assisted installations, and dynamic project integration through a FastAPI backend and Java-based graphical interface. The system’s core innovation is its autonomous self-customization engine, where the Builder Agent interprets natural language requests to generate, implement, and integrate new functionalities into the assistant’s own codebase, allowing the system to dynamically evolve. Specialized agents—including Scraper, LLM, Builder, and Assistant—coordinate to deliver iterative, context-aware development and intelligent task handling. Evaluation across 124 installations yielded a Task Success Rate of 88.75% using GPT-4o and a Completion Rate of 93.45%, outperforming other LLMs such as Gemini and DeepSeek. These results highlight the system’s potential as a multi-agent computational framework that integrates conversational interaction with autonomous software engineering.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207