Multi-objective Optimization for Monitoring Sensor Placement in Water Distribution Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As water distribution systems are vulnerable to a variety of accidental or deliberate contaminant intrusion events, efficient in-situ water quality monitoring is important in providing a robust water supply. To identify optimal placements of monitoring sensors in water distribution systems, a multiple-objective optimization method employing genetic algorithms (GA) in conjunction with data mining, is developed. The proposed methodology is capable of identifying an optimal set of monitoring stations based on three objectives: detection delay time, detection probability, and the affected population prior to detection. To apply the method, a database which stores data for intrusion events at each node, and the classified consequences of these intrusions at each node, is prepared. The initial solutions for multi-objective optimization are obtained from the database based on sensor coverage criteria. Pareto ranking is performed during the GA optimization. The effectiveness of the proposed method is illustrated by applying the methodology to the two networks, Networks 1 and 2, provided by the Battle of the Water Sensor Networks design competition. The final results in application to Networks 1 and 2 are also provided. This paper was presented at the 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium which was held with the generous support of Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".