Multiobjective optimization with a modified simulated annealing algorithm for external beam radiotherapy treatment planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse planning in external beam radiotherapy often requires a scalar objective function that incorporates importance factors to mimic the planner's preferences between conflicting objectives. Defining those importance factors is not straightforward, and frequently leads to an iterative process in which the importance factors become variables of the optimization problem. In order to avoid this drawback of inverse planning, optimization using algorithms more suited to multiobjective optimization, such as evolutionary algorithms, has been suggested. However, much inverse planning software, including one based on simulated annealing developed at our institution, does not include multiobjective-oriented algorithms. This work investigates the performance of a modified simulated annealing algorithm used to drive aperture-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy inverse planning software in a multiobjective optimization framework. For a few test cases involving gastric cancer patients, the use of this new algorithm leads to an increase in optimization speed of a little more than a factor of 2 over a conventional simulated annealing algorithm, while giving a close approximation of the solutions produced by a standard simulated annealing. A simple graphical user interface designed to facilitate the decision-making process that follows an optimization is also presented.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".