MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166674691 · doi:10.1109/tsmcc.2007.900651

Optimal Advertising Campaign Generation for Multiple Brands Using MOGA

2007· article· en· W2166674691 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part C (Applications and Reviews) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreedy algorithmMathematical optimizationHeuristicGenetic algorithmComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Encoding (memory)Pareto optimalSet (abstract data type)Pareto principleOptimization problemMulti-objective optimizationKey (lock)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper proposes a new modified multiobjective genetic algorithm (MOGA) for the problem of optimal television (TV) advertising campaign generation for multiple brands. This NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem with numerous constraints is one of the key issues for an advertising agency when producing the optimal TV mediaplan. The classical approach to the solution of this problem is the greedy heuristic, which relies on the strength of the preceding commercial breaks when selecting the next break to add to the campaign. While the greedy heuristic is capable of generating only a group of solutions that are closely related in the objective space, the proposed modified MOGA produces a Pareto-optimal set of chromosomes that: 1) outperform the greedy heuristic; and 2) let the mediaplanner choose from a variety of uniformly distributed tradeoff solutions. To achieve these results, the special problem-specific solution encoding, genetic operators, and original local optimization routine were developed for the algorithm. These techniques allow the algorithm to manipulate with only feasible individuals, thus, significantly improving its performance that is complicated by the problem constraints. The efficiency of the developed optimization method is verified using the real data sets from the Canadian advertising industry.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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