Estimating force mix lower bounds using a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nations will always experience conflicting pressures to reduce both (i) the funding of militaries and (ii) the probability that they will not be able to respond to scenarios that may arise. We develop a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) to generate force mix options that trade-off between lower bounds for objective (i) versus objective (ii). A set of military assets or force mix is evaluated against multiple instances of the future, each composed of a mix of stochastically generated realistic scenarios based on historically derived parameters. Scenario success is evaluated by matching each occurrence with a course of action (CoA) whose force element (FE) demands can be met. The lower bound on (i) comes from the assumption that a nation has complete flexibility to engage in scenarios at times that minimize simultaneous demand on FEs. The results are compared with the results from Tyche, a discrete event Simulator, which provides an more realistic, though pessimistic, point estimate of objective (ii). Results confirm the expected relative behavior of both models.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it