Pruning and ranking the Pareto optimal set, application for the dynamic multi‐objective network design problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Solving the multi‐objective network design problem (MONDP) resorts to a Pareto optimal set. This set can provide additional information like trade‐offs between objectives for the decision making process, which is not available if the compensation principle would be chosen in advance. However, the Pareto optimal set of solutions can become large, especially if the objectives are mainly opposed. As a consequence, the Pareto optimal set may become difficult to analyze and to comprehend. In this case, pruning and ranking becomes attractive to reduce the Pareto optimal set and to rank the solutions to assist the decision maker. Because the method used, may influence the eventual decisions taken, it is important to choose a method that corresponds best with the underlying decision process and is in accordance with the qualities of the data used. We provided a review of some methods to prune and rank the Pareto optimal set to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. The methods are applied using the outcome of solving the dynamic MONDP in which minimizing externalities of traffic are the objectives, and dynamic traffic management measures are the decision variables. For this, we solved the dynamic MONDP for a realistic network of the city Almelo in the Netherlands using the non‐dominated sorting genetic algorithm II. For ranking, we propose to use a fuzzy outranking method that can take uncertainties regarding the data quality and the perception of decision makers into account; and for pruning, a method that explicitly reckons with significant trade‐offs has been identified as the more suitable method to assist the decision making process. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".