Interval-Parameter Robust Minimax-regret Programming and Its Application to Energy and Environmental Systems Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, an interval-parameter robust minimax-regret programming method is developed and applied to the planning of energy and environmental systems. Methods of robust programming, interval-parameter programming, and minimax-regret analysis are incorporated within a general optimization framework to enhance the robustness of the optimization effort. The interval-parameter robust minimax-regret programming can deal with uncertainties expressed as discrete intervals, fuzzy sets, and random variables. It can also be used for analyzing multiple scenarios associated with different system costs and risk levels. In its solution process, the fuzzy decision space is delimited into a more robust one through dimensional enlargement of the original fuzzy constraints; moreover, an interval-element cost matrix can be transformed into an interval-element regret matrix, such that the decision makers can identify desired alternatives based on the inexact minimax regret criterion. The developed method has been applied to a case study of energy and environmental systems planning under uncertainty. The results indicate that reasonable solutions have been generated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it