MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035108481 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0848

Interactive Coordination of Objective Decompositions in Multiobjective Programming

2008· article· en· W2035108481 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

VenueManagement Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAutomotive Research CenterUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMathematical optimizationDecision makerSelection (genetic algorithm)DecompositionMultiobjective programmingComputer scienceMulti-objective optimizationSensitivity (control systems)PortfolioLinear programmingFunction (biology)MathematicsOperations researchArtificial intelligenceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To remedy challenges resulting from a high number of objectives in multiobjective programming and multicriteria decision making, this paper chooses to decompose the vector objective function and characterizes the relationships between solutions for the original problem and the collection of decomposed subproblems. In particular, it is shown how solutions that are found using this decomposition approach relate to solutions found by traditional scalarization techniques. For the selection of a final solution, two interactive coordination methods are proposed that allow to find any solution for the original problem by merely solving the smaller-sized subproblems, while integrating both preferences of the decision maker and trade-off information obtained from a sensitivity analysis. A theoretical foundation for the procedures is established, and their application is illustrated for portfolio optimization and a design selection problem.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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