MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289492132 · doi:10.5555/2888619.2888865

Machine learning-based metamodels for sawing simulation

2015· article· en· W2289492132 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitMachine learningKernel (algebra)Artificial intelligenceDecision treeRegressionRidgeTree (set theory)Kernel methodSupport vector machineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use machine learning to generate metamodels for sawing simulation. Simulation is widely used in the wood industry for decision making. These simulators are particular since their response for a given input is a structured object, i.e., a basket of lumbers. We demonstrate how we use simple machine learning algorithms (e.g., a tree) to obtain a good approximation of the simulator's response. The generated metamodels are guaranteed to output physically realistic baskets (i.e., there exists at least one log that can produce the basket). We also propose to use kernel ridge regression. While having the power to exploit the structure of a basket, it can predict previously unseen baskets. We finally evaluate the impact of possibly predicting unrealistic baskets using ridge regression jointly with a nearest neighbor approach in the output space. All metamodels are evaluated using standard machine learning metrics and novel metrics especially designed for the problem.

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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.227 · 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