Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most popular approach for solving fully fuzzy linear programming (FFLP) problems is to convert them into the corresponding deterministic linear programs. Khan et al. (2013) [Khan, I. U., Ahmad, T., & Maan, N. (2013). A simplified novel technique for solving fully fuzzy linear programming problems. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 159(2), 536-546.] claimed that there had been no method in the literature to find the fuzzy optimal solution of a FFLP problem without converting it into crisp linear programming problem, and proposed a technique for the same. Others showed that the fuzzy arithmetic operation used by Khan et al. (2013) had some problems in subtraction and division operations, which could lead to misleading results. Recently, Ezzati et al. (2014) [Ezzati, R., Khorram, E., & Enayati, R. (2014). A particular simplex algorithm to solve fuzzy lexicographic multi-objective linear programming problems and their sensitivity analysis on the priority of the fuzzy objective functions. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26(5), 2333-2358.] defined a new operation on symmetric trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and proposed a new algorithm to find directly a lexicographic/preemptive fuzzy optimal solution of a fuzzy lexicographic multi-objective linear programming problem by using new fuzzy arithmetic operations, but their model was not fully fuzzy optimization. In this paper, a new method, by using Ezzati et al. (2014)’s fuzzy arithmetic operation and a fuzzy version of simplex algorithm, is proposed for solving FFLP problem whose parameters are represented by symmetric trapezoidal fuzzy number without converting the given problem into crisp equivalent problem. By using the proposed method, the fuzzy optimal solution of FFLP problem can be easily obtained. A numerical example is provided to illustrate the proposed method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".