MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023835690 · doi:10.1080/03052150108940935

MULTIOBJECTIVE DESIGN OPTIMIZATION BASED ON SATISFACTION METRICS

2001· article· en· W2023835690 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

VenueEngineering Optimization · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulti-objective optimizationSolverComputer sciencePareto principleMathematical optimizationContext (archaeology)ImplementationConstraint satisfaction problemEngineering design processMathematicsEngineeringSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceProbabilistic logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A formal multiobjective optimization method based on satisfaction metrics is presented for designing an engineering system with mathematical rigour. Three satisfaction-based design models with different tradeoff strategies are developed to facilitate the incorporation of satisfaction metrics into the context of design formulations. These models are derived from different combinations of satisfaction-incorporated design objectives, enabling the conversion of the original multiple objectives appropriately to a single unified goal. This makes it easy to apply any available single-objective mathematical programming solver for the resulting problem solving. Not only does the method generate a Pareto-optimal solution, but also it allows for the generation of many design alternatives in a feasible design space. A computational procedure is also suggested to guide design implementations. For illustration, an example is worked out to show the computational details and the utility of the newly developed design models.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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