MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118311688 · doi:10.1017/s0890060401151024

Kriging as a surrogate fitness landscape in evolutionary optimization

2001· article· en· W2118311688 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Ratle

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsKrigingFitness landscapeFitness approximationMathematical optimizationSurrogate modelInterpolation (computer graphics)Evolutionary algorithmFitness functionComputer scienceProcess (computing)Function (biology)Black boxEngineering design processMathematicsGenetic algorithmMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of finding optimal values in complex parameter optimization problems has often been solved with success by evolutionary algorithms (EAs). In many cases, these algorithms are employed as black-box methods over imprecisely known domains. Such problems arise frequently in engineering design. The principal barrier to the general use of EAs for those problems is the huge number of function evaluations that is often required. This makes EAs an impractical approach when the function evaluation depends on numerically heavy design analysis tools, for example, finite elements methods. This paper presents the use of kriging interpolation as a function approximation method for the construction of an internal model of the fitness landscape. This model is intended to guide the search process with a reduced number of fitness function evaluations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturingSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207