MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079518339 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2010.5575168

Comparative study of heuristics for reliability optimization of complex systems

2010· article· en· W2079518339 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsTabu searchSimulated annealingComputer scienceMathematical optimizationReliability (semiconductor)MetaheuristicArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heuristics were created to find solutions for problems that are NP-hard. Although many heuristics have been proposed, few can escape from identifying local optima. This paper presents heuristics applied to Reliability Optimization scenarios and as motivation discusses three heuristics applied to separate models. Although each model is different, they share an underlying commonality; how does one optimize the given problem? Each of the models is presented, and the approach is discussed. The paper continues by reproducing the first model discussed by Wattanapongsakorn et al. using both Simulated Annealing and Tabu Search. While they have been investigated separately, they have not been compared computationally. In this paper, we examine and compare these two techniques and discuss the pros and cons accordingly.

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)0.001
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 score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.291 · 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