Multi-objective optimization in rule-based design space exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design space exploration (DSE) aims to find optimal design candidates of a domain with respect to different objectives where design candidates are constrained by complex structural and numerical restrictions. Rule-based DSE aims to find such candidates that are reachable from an initial model by applying a sequence of exploration rules. Solving a rule-based DSE problem is a difficult challenge due to the inherently dynamic nature of the problem. In the current paper, we propose to integrate multi-objective optimization techniques by using Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms (NSGA) to drive rule-based design space exploration. For this purpose, finite populations of the most promising design candidates are maintained wrt. different optimization criteria. In our context, individuals of a generation are defined as a sequence of rule applications leading from an initial model to a candidate model. Populations evolve by mutation and crossover operations which manipulate (change, extend or combine) rule execution sequences to yield new individuals. Our multi-objective optimization approach for rule-based DSE is domain independent and it is automated by tooling built on the Eclipse framework. The main added value is to seamlessly lift multi-objective optimization techniques to the exploration process preserving both domain independence and a high-level of abstraction. Design candidates will still be represented as models and the evolution of these models as rule execution sequences. Constraints are captured by model queries while objectives can be derived both from models or rule applications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".