MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777645383 · doi:10.1117/1.jpe.7.048001

Multiobjective generalized extremal optimization algorithm for simulation of daylight illuminants

2017· article· en· W2777645383 on OpenAlexaff
Srividya Ravindra Kumar, Ciji Pearl Kurian, Marcos Eduardo Gomes-Borges

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Photonics for Energy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaylightColor rendering indexComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)AlgorithmLuminous efficacyEvolutionary algorithmLight-emitting diodeLuminous fluxMulti-objective optimizationGenetic algorithmRadianceMathematical optimizationMathematicsOpticsArtificial intelligenceLight sourceMachine learningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daylight illuminants are widely used as references for color quality testing and optical vision testing applications. Presently used daylight simulators make use of fluorescent bulbs that are not tunable and occupy more space inside the quality testing chambers. By designing a spectrally tunable LED light source with an optimal number of LEDs, cost, space, and energy can be saved. This paper describes an application of the generalized extremal optimization (GEO) algorithm for selection of the appropriate quantity and quality of LEDs that compose the light source. The multiobjective approach of this algorithm tries to get the best spectral simulation with minimum fitness error toward the target spectrum, correlated color temperature (CCT) the same as the target spectrum, high color rendering index (CRI), and luminous flux as required for testing applications. GEO is a global search algorithm based on phenomena of natural evolution and is especially designed to be used in complex optimization problems. Several simulations have been conducted to validate the performance of the algorithm. The methodology applied to model the LEDs, together with the theoretical basis for CCT and CRI calculation, is presented in this paper. A comparative result analysis of M-GEO evolutionary algorithm with the Levenberg–Marquardt conventional deterministic algorithm is also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Photonics for EnergySame topicColor Science and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207