Creating Alternatives for Stochastic Water Resources Management Decision-Making Using a Firefly Algorithm-Driven Simulation-Optimization Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In solving complex water resources management (WRM) problems, it can prove preferable to create numerous quantifiably good alternatives that provide multiple, disparate perspectives. This is because WRM normally involves multifaceted problems that are riddled with incompatible performance objectives and contain inconsistent design requirements, which are very difficult to quantify and capture when supporting decisions must be constructed. By producing a set of options that are maximally different from each other in terms of their unmodelled variable structures, it is hoped that some of these dissimilar solutions may convey very different perspectives that may serve to address these unmodelled objectives. In environmental planning, this maximally different option production procedure is referred to as modelling-to-generate-alternatives (MGA). In addition, many components of WRM problems possess extensive stochastic uncertainty. This study provides a firefly algorithm-driven simulation-optimization approach for MGA that can be used to efficiently create multiple solution alternatives to problems containing significant stochastic uncertainties that satisfy required system performance criteria and yet are maximally different in their decision spaces. This algorithmic approach is both computationally efficient and simultaneously produces a prescribed number of maximally different solution alternatives in a single computational run of the procedure. The effectiveness of this stochastic MGA approach for creating alternatives in “real world”, environmental policy formulation is demonstrated using a WRM case study.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".