MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012605609 · doi:10.1002/pamm.200700405

A multiobjective decomposition‐coordination framework with an application to vehicle layout and configuration design

2007· article· en· W2012605609 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

VenuePAMM · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAutomotive Research CenterUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsDecompositionMathematical optimizationComputer scienceMulti-objective optimizationProcess (computing)Optimization problemDecomposition method (queueing theory)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This short paper addresses both researchers in multiobjective optimization as well as industrial practitioners and decision makers in need of solving optimization and decision problems with multiple criteria. To enhance the solution and decision process, a multiobjective decomposition‐coordination framework is presented that initially decomposes the original problem into a collection of smaller‐sized subproblems that can be solved for their individual solution sets. A common solution for all decomposed and, thus, the original problem is then achieved through a subsequent coordination mechanism that uses the concept of epsilon‐efficiency to integrate decisions on the desired tradeoffs between these individual solutions. An application to a problem from vehicle configuration design is selected for further illustration of the results in this paper and suggests that the proposed method is an effective and promising new solution technique for multicriteria decision making and optimization. (© 2008 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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