Objective Reduction Using Axiomatic Design and Product-Related Dependencies: A Layout Synthesis of an Autonomous Greenhouse Case Study
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
Abstract Many-objective optimization problem (MaOP) is defined as optimization with more than 3 objective functions. This high number of objectives makes the comparing solutions more challenging. This holds true for design problems which are MaOPs by nature due to the inherent complexity and multifaceted nature of real-life applications. In the last decades, many strategies have attempted to overcome MaOPs such as removing objectives based on their impact on the optimization. However, from a design perspective, removing objectives could lead to an under optimal, unfeasible or unreliable design. Consequently, objective aggregation seems to be a better approach since objectives can be grouped based on design features controlled by the designers. The proposed methodology uses Axiomatic Design to decompose a system into subsystems or components, and Product-Related Dependencies Management to identify the dependencies between components and formulate the objectives. Then, these objectives are aggregated based on the subsystems found with the Axiomatic Design. The methodology, applied to the layout synthesis of an autonomous greenhouse, can trim down the number of objectives from 15 to 5. Then, using a modified non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) combined with the objective aggregation, we were able to increase the number of “good” concepts found from 9 to 33 out of a total of 50 obtained designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it