Efficiency of MOMA-plus Method to Solve Some Fully Fuzzy L-R Triangular Multiobjective Linear Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a novel approach for solving some fully fuzzy L-R triangular multiobjective linear optimization programs using MOMA-plus method (Kounhinir, 2017). This approach is composed of two relevant steps such as the converting of the fully fuzzy L-R triangular multiobjective linear optimization problem into a deterministic multiobjective linear optimization and the applying of the adapting MOMA-plus method. The initial version of MOMA-plus method is designed for multiobjective deterministic optimization (Kounhinir, 2017) and having already been tested on the single-objective fuzzy programs (Abdoulaye, 2017). Our new method allow to find all of the Pareto optimal solutions of a fully fuzzy L-R triangular multiobjective linear optimization problems obtained after conversion. For highlighting the efficiency of our approach a didactic numerical example is dealt with and obtained solutions are compared to Total Objective Segregation Method proposed by Jayalakslmi and Pandia (Jayalakslmi 2014).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".