MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314729826 · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.03.038

Multi-Objective Optimization of Vehicle Passive Suspension System Using NSGA-II, SPEA2 and PESA-II

2016· article· en· W2314729826 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

VenueProcedia Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulti-objective optimizationMathematical optimizationSuspension (topology)Evolutionary algorithmPareto principleOrdinary differential equationOptimization problemSet (abstract data type)Pareto optimalEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsDifferential equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a constrained multi-objective optimization study of vehicle passive suspension system which is modeled as a passive half car ride model. For multi-objective optimization the most widely used multi-objective evolutionary algorithms such as NSGA-II, SPEA2 and PESA-II are employed. The potential of the MOEAs in obtaining the better Pareto front of optimal solutions and in maintaining the diversity among the optimal solutions is tested by conducting 2 and 3-objective optimization studies. The results show that NSGA-II is able to yield a better Pareto front in terms of minimizing the objective vector but SPEA2 and PESA-II has a better diversified set of optimal solutions. Overall, all three algorithms have performed equally in optimizing the problem with the nature of the equations is second order ordinary differential equations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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