MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400713680 · doi:10.14288/1.0075216

Evolution programs, simulated annealing and hill climbing applied to harvest scheduling problems

2009· article· en· W2400713680 on OpenAlex
Guoliang Liu

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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHill climbingSimulated annealingComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To protect non-timber resources such as wildlife, water quality and aesthetics, harvesting regulations have been introduced that limit opening size, and set minimum green-up times. Many constraints have been introduced to long-term, multiple-use forest planning problems. Proper scheduling of cut blocks for the large-scale integrated forest planning is important in order to produce the maximum amount of timber from the land base without violating the constraints. Also, these problems are difficult to solve due to the problem size and the constraint structure. These non-linear combinatorial optimization problems are difficult and even impossible to solve to optimality with present- day computers. In this thesis, three models based on evolution programs, simulated annealing and hill climbing were developed with C and C++ for solving forest planning problems. Both evolution programs an d simulated annealing are probabilistic algorithms that will accept inferior moves within the search space as a means of searching out global optima. They differ from hill climbing algorithms that only accept superior solutions, and often stall at local optima. Evolution programs simultaneously work with a population of solutions, while simulated annealing is a specific case where the population size is reduced to one. Evolution programs and simulated annealing are applicable to a broad range of problems for which very little prior knowledge is available. However, many opportunities exist for improving the performance of these algorithms by incorporating problem specific knowledge and heuristics. This is the first time that simulated annealing theory is used on a problem- specific gene recombination operator working on individual chromosomes. It is believed that the evolution programs can be applied to many more problems. It was found that all solutions generated by all these methods were within 3.12% of the best solution found. All the solutions found by simulated annealing are within 1.00%; evolution programs, 2.54% and hill climbing, 3.12% of this best solution. However, simulated annealing converged much faster on the optimum than did the evolution program. Using a 486/50 MHz computer, the evolution program took 378 minutes with a population of 30 chromosomes, 431 harvest blocks and 10,000 generations. Simulated annealing took only 36.8 minutes, while hill climbing took 32.7 minutes on the same 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · 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