Multiobjective Optimization Through a Series of Single-Objective Formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work deals with bound constrained multiobjective optimization (MOP) of nonsmooth functions for problems where the structure of the objective functions either cannot be exploited, or are absent. Typical situations arise when the functions are computed as the result of a computer simulation. We first present definitions and optimality conditions as well as two families of single-objective formulations of MOP. Next, we propose a new algorithm called for the biobjective optimization (BOP) problem (i.e., MOP with two objective functions). The property that Pareto points may be ordered in BOP and not in MOP is exploited by our algorithm. generates an approximation of the Pareto front by solving a series of single-objective formulations of BOP. These single-objective problems are solved using the recent (mesh adaptive direct search) algorithm for nonsmooth optimization. The Pareto front approximation is shown to satisfy some first order necessary optimality conditions based on the Clarke calculus. Finally, is tested on problems from the literature designed to illustrate specific difficulties encountered in biobjective optimization, such as a nonconvex or disjoint Pareto front, local Pareto fronts, or a nonuniform Pareto front.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".