MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078135442 · doi:10.1115/detc2006-99560

Developing Multiple Diverse Potential Designs for Heat Transfer Utilizing Graph Based Evolutionary Algorithms

2006· article· en· W2078135442 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Muth, Douglas S. McCorkle, Daniel Ashlock, Kenneth M. Bryden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationMathematical optimizationEvolutionary algorithmGraphComputer sciencePremature convergenceConvergence (economics)Evolutionary computationMathematicsGenetic algorithmTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the use of graph based evolutionary algorithms (GBEAs) to find multiple acceptable solutions for heat transfer in engineering systems during the optimization process. GBEAs are a type of evolutionary algorithm (EA) in which a topology, or geography, is imposed on an evolving population of solutions. The rates at which solutions can spread within the population are controlled by the choice of topology. As in nature geography can be used to develop and sustain diversity within the solution population. Altering the choice of graph can create a more or less diverse population of potential solutions. The choice of graph can also affect the convergence rate for the EA and the number of mating events required for convergence. The engineering system examined in this paper is a biomass fueled cookstove used in developing nations for household cooking. In this cookstove wood is combusted in a small combustion chamber and the resulting hot gases are utilized to heat the stove’s cooking surface. The spatial temperature profile of the cooking surface is determined by a series of baffles that direct the flow of hot gases. The optimization goal is to find baffle configurations that provide an even temperature distribution on the cooking surface. Often in engineering, the goal of optimization is not to find the single optimum solution but rather to identify a number of good solutions that can be used as a starting point for detailed engineering design. Because of this a key aspect of evolutionary optimization is the diversity of the solutions found. The key conclusion in this paper is that GBEA’s can be used to create multiple good solutions needed to support engineering design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207