arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2410.18358

Data Publishing in Mechanics and Dynamics: Challenges, Guidelines, and Examples from Engineering Design

Abstract

Data-based methods have gained increasing importance in engineering, especially but not only driven by successes with deep artificial neural networks. Success stories are prevalent, e.g., in areas such as data-driven modeling, control and automation, as well as surrogate modeling for accelerated simulation. Beyond engineering, generative and large-language models are increasingly helping with tasks that, previously, were solely associated with creative human processes. Thus, it seems timely to seek artificial-intelligence-support for engineering design tasks to automate, help with, or accelerate purpose-built designs of engineering systems, e.g., in mechanics and dynamics, where design so far requires a lot of specialized knowledge. However, research-wise, compared to established, predominantly first-principles-based methods, the datasets used for training, validation, and test become an almost inherent part of the overall methodology. Thus, data publishing becomes just as important in (data-driven) engineering science as appropriate descriptions of conventional methodology in publications in the past. This article analyzes the value and challenges of data publishing in mechanics and dynamics, in particular regarding engineering design tasks, showing that the latter raise also challenges and considerations not typical in fields where data-driven methods have been booming originally. Possible ways to deal with these challenges are discussed and a set of examples from across different design problems shows how data publishing can be put into practice. The analysis, discussions, and examples are based on the research experience made in a priority program of the German research foundation focusing on research on artificially intelligent design assistants in mechanics and dynamics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Henrik Ebel, Jan van Delden, Timo Lüddecke, Aditya Borse, Rutwik Gulakala, Marcus Stoffel, Manish Yadav, Merten Stender, Leon Schindler, Kristin Miriam de Payrebrune, Maximilian Raff, C. David Remy, Benedict Röder, Rohit Raj, Tobias Rentschler, Alexander Tismer, Stefan Riedelbauch, Peter Eberhard. 2024-10-07. Data Publishing in Mechanics and Dynamics: Challenges, Guidelines, and Examples from Engineering Design. https://doi.org/10.1017/dce.2025.13

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY