MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157126773 · doi:10.1111/itor.12989

An extended ϵ‐constraint method for a multiobjective finite‐horizon Markov decision process

2021· article· en· W3157126773 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Eghbali‐Zarch, Reza Tavakkoli‐Moghaddam, Amir Azaron, Kazem Dehghan‐Sanej

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Transactions in Operational Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationMarkov decision processComputer sciencePareto principleConstraint (computer-aided design)Scheduling (production processes)Markov processSelection (genetic algorithm)Class (philosophy)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A Markov decision process (MDP) is an appropriate mathematical framework for analysis and modeling a large class of sequential decision‐making problems. Real‐world applications necessitate the evaluation of the value of a decision according to several conflicting objectives. This paper presents an extended ϵ‐constraint method for a multiobjective finite‐horizon MDP. This study integrates the ϵ‐constraint method with the K‐best policies algorithm to find the nondominated deterministic Markovian policies on the Pareto‐optimal frontier. The proposed algorithm is evaluated on biobjective maintenance scheduling and machine running speed selection problems, and its performance is compared with a classic approach in the literature (weighted‐sum, WS, method). Satisfying results show that the proposed algorithm obtains a good‐quality Pareto frontier and has advantages over the WS method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Transactions in Operational ResearchSame topicOptimization and Mathematical ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207