Many-objective optimization and visual analytics reveal key trade-offs for London’s water supply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we link a water resource management simulator to multi-objective search to reveal the key trade-offs inherent in planning a real-world water resource system. We consider new supplies and demand management (conservation) options while seeking to elucidate the trade-offs between the best portfolios of schemes to satisfy projected water demands. Alternative system designs are evaluated using performance measures that minimize capital and operating costs and energy use while maximizing resilience, engineering and environmental metrics, subject to supply reliability constraints. Our analysis shows many-objective evolutionary optimization coupled with state-of-the art visual analytics can help planners discover more diverse water supply system designs and better understand their inherent trade-offs. The approach is used to explore future water supply options for the Thames water resource system (including London’s water supply). New supply options include a new reservoir, water transfers, artificial recharge, wastewater reuse and brackish groundwater desalination. Demand management options include leakage reduction, compulsory metering and seasonal tariffs. The Thames system’s Pareto approximate portfolios cluster into distinct groups of water supply options; for example implementing a pipe refurbishment program leads to higher capital costs but greater reliability. This study highlights that traditional least-cost reliability constrained design of water supply systems masks asset combinations whose benefits only become apparent when more planning objectives are considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".