MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100194383 · doi:10.5555/1995456.1995620

Using genetic algorithms to limit the optimism in time warp

2009· article· en· W2100194383 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicConstruct (python library)Genetic algorithmAlgorithmLimit (mathematics)Time limitWindow (computing)Quality (philosophy)Mathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that controlling the optimism in Time Warp is central to its success. To date, this problem has been approached by constructing a heuristic model of Time Warp's behavior and optimizing the models' performance. The extent to which the model actually reflects reality is therefore central to its ability to control Time Warp's behavior. In contrast to those approaches, using genetic algorithms avoids the need to construct models of Time Warp's behavior. We demonstrate, in this paper, how the choice of a time window for Time Warp can be transformed into a search problem, and how a genetic algorithm can be utilized to search for the optimal value of the window. An important quality of genetic algorithms is that they can start a search with a random choice for the values of the parameter(s) which they are trying to optimize and produce high quality solutions.

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 score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.202 · 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