An interval-coefficient fuzzy binary linear programming, the solution, and its application under uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common difficulty in solving a Binary Linear Programming (BLP) problem is uncertainties in the parameters and the model structure. The previous studies of BLP problems normally focus on parameter uncertainty or model structure uncertainty, but not on both types of uncertainties. This paper develops an interval-coefficient Fuzzy Binary Linear Programming (IFBLP) and its solution for BLP problems under uncertainties both on parameters and model structure. In the IFBLP, the parameter uncertainty is represented by the interval coefficients, and the model structure uncertainty is reflected by the fuzzy constraints and a fuzzy goal. A novel and efficient methodology is used to solve the IFLBP into two extreme crisp-coefficient BLPs, which are called the ‘best optimum model’ and the ‘worst optimum model’. The results of these two crisp-coefficient extreme models can bound all outcomes of the IFBLP. One of the contributions in this paper is that it provides a mathematical sound approach (based on some mathematical developments) to find the boundaries of optimal alpha values, so that the linearity of model can be maintained during the conversions. The proposed approach is applied to a traffic noise control plan to demonstrate its capability of dealing with uncertainties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".