Sensitivity of forest plan value to parameters of simulated annealing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulated annealing (SA) is a heuristic technique popular in forest planning, providing solutions close to optimality in reduced computation time. The present study challenges the common approach used to establish the parameters of SA that mimic physical processes by proving that slow cooling or large initial temperatures do not necessarily lead to optimal solutions. The study has two objectives: (1) to identify the parameters (i.e., initial temperature and annealing rate) that could supply close to optimal results with reduced experimentation time and (2) to assess the impact of parameters determining SA performances. Using three forest inventory data sets from British Columbia, we investigated the influence of initial temperature, annealing rate, and numbers of runs on forest planning solutions using a replicated completely randomized design organized as a factorial experiment within a repeated-measures framework. The optimal solution seems to be little influenced by the number of runs; our findings indicate that the combination of initial temperature and rate of annealing is critical in obtaining superior results. Furthermore, the selection of the SA parameters seems to be dependent on the harvest age, which indicates that the parameters should be selected considering whether or not a stand is harvested more than once during the planning period.
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 | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".