∊-constraint heat transfer search (∊-HTS) algorithm for solving multi-objective engineering design problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, an effective ∊-constraint heat transfer search (∊-HTS) algorithm for the multi-objective engineering design problems is presented. This algorithm is developed to solve multi-objective optimization problems by evaluating a set of single objective sub-problems. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is checked by implementing it on multi-objective benchmark problems that have various characteristics of Pareto front such as discrete, convex, and non-convex. This algorithm is also tested for several distinctive multi-objective engineering design problems, such as four bar truss problem, gear train problem, multi-plate disc brake design, speed reducer problem, welded beam design, and spring design problem. Moreover, the numerical experimentation shows that the proposed algorithm generates the solution to represent true Pareto front. Highlights A novel multi-objective optimization (MOO) algorithm is proposed. Proposed algorithm is presented to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions. The multi-objective optimization algorithm compared with other work in the literature. Test performance of proposed algorithm on MOO benchmark/design engineering problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".