Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using a biologically-inspired simulation-optimisation algorithm for generating alternative perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In solving many environmental policy formulation applications, it is generally preferable to formulate several quantifiably good alternatives that provide multiple, disparate approaches to the problem. This is because environmental decision-making typically involves complex problems that are riddled with incompatible performance objectives and possess competing design requirements which are very difficult - if not impossible - to quantify and capture at the time when supporting decision models must be constructed. By generating a set of maximally different solutions, it is hoped that some of the dissimilar alternatives can provide very different perspectives that may serve to satisfy the unmodelled objectives. This maximally different solution creation approach is referred to as modelling to generate-alternatives (MGA). This paper provides a biologically-inspired metaheuristic simulation-optimisation MGA method that can efficiently create multiple solution alternatives to environmental problems containing significant stochastic uncertainties that satisfy required system performance criteria and yet are maximally different in their decision spaces. The efficacy of this stochastic MGA approach for environmental policy formulation is demonstrated using a municipal solid waste case study. It is shown that this new computationally efficient algorithmic approach can simultaneously produce the desired number of maximally different solution alternatives in a single computational run of the procedure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".