Multi‐objective highway alignment optimization using a genetic algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The available highway alignment optimization algorithms use the total cost as the objective function. This is a single objective optimization process. In this process, travel‐time, vehicle operation accident earthwork land acquisition and pavement construction costs are the basic components of the total cost. This single objective highway alignment optimization process has limited capability in handling the cost components separately. Moreover, this process cannot yield a set of alternative solutions from a single run. This paper presents a multi‐objective approach to overcome these shortcomings. Some of the cost components of highway alignments are conflicting in nature. Minimizing some of them will yield a straighter alignment; whereas, minimizing others would make the alignment circuitous. Therefore, the goal of the multiobjective optimization approach is to handle the trade‐off amongst the highway alignment design objectives and present a set of near optimal solutions. The highway alignment objectives, i.e., cost functions, are not continuous in nature. Hence, a special genetic algorithm based multi‐objective optimization algorithm is suggested The proposed methodology is demonstrated via a case study at the end.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it