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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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