Multi-Objective Optimization in Multi-Attribute and Multi-Unit Combinatorial Reverse Auctions
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
This study introduces an advanced Combinatorial Reverse Auction (CRA), multi-units, multiattributes and multi-objective, which is subject to buyer and seller trading constraints. Conflicting objectives may occur since the buyer can maximize some attributes and minimize some others. To address the Winner Determination (WD) problem for this type of CRAs, we propose an optimization approach based on genetic algorithms that we integrate with our variants of diversity and elitism strategies to improve the solution quality. Moreover, by maximizing the buyer’s revenue, our approach is able to return the best solution for our complex WD problem. We conduct a case study as well as simulated testing to illustrate the importance of the diversity and elitism schemes. We also validate the proposed WD method through simulated experiments by generating large instances of our CRA problem. The experimental results demonstrate on one hand the performance of our WD method in terms of several quality measures, like solution quality, run-time complexity and trade-off between convergence and diversity, and on the other hand, it’s significant superiority to well-known heuristic and exact WD techniques that have been implemented for much simpler CRAs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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