MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1747956779

A case study on target cost estimation using a genetic algorithm and a back-propagation based neural network

2010· article· en· W1747956779 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adil Salam, Fantahun M. Defersha, Nadia Bhuiyan, Mingyuan Chen

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 Second International Conference on Engineering System Management and Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkGenetic algorithmParametric statisticsComputer scienceBackpropagationArtificial intelligenceFunction (biology)Parametric modelMachine learningData miningComponent (thermodynamics)Property (philosophy)AlgorithmMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing the target cost of new products has always been difficult, as only a few attributes of the product as usually known. In these circumstances, parametric methods are commonly used by using a predetermined cost function where the considered parameters are evaluated from historical data. In contrast to the regression or parametric models, neural networks, in are non-parametric which attempt to fit curves to predict the cost without being provided a predetermined function. In this paper, the above mentioned property of neural networks is used to investigate their applicability for cost estimation of a certain major aircraft component. This empirical study is conducted in collaboration with a major aerospace company located in Montreal, Canada. Two neural network models, one trained by the gradient decent algorithm and the other by genetic algorithm, are considered and contrasted to one another. The study, using historical data, shows that the neural network model trained by genetic algorithm outperforms the model trained by back-propagation as it fits well both in the training and validation data sets.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 Second International Conference on Engineering System Management and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology TechniquesFrench-language works237,207