Integrated Operation of Multi-Reservoir and Many-Objective System Using Fuzzified Hedging Rule and Strength Pareto Evolutionary Optimization Algorithm (SPEA2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a many-objective optimization algorithm was developed using SPEA2 for a system of four reservoirs in the Karun basin, including hydropower, municipal and industrial, agricultural, and environmental objectives. For this purpose, using 53 years of available data, hedging rules were developed in two modes: with and without applying fuzzy logic. SPEA2 was used to optimize hedging coefficients using the first 43 years of data and the last 10 years of data were used to test the optimized rule curves. The results were compared with those of non-hedging methods, including the standard operating procedures (SOP) and water evaluation and planning (WEAP) model. The results indicate that the combination of fuzzy logic and hedging rules in a many-objectives system is more efficient than the discrete hedging rule alone. For instance, the reliability of the hydropower requirement in the fuzzified discrete hedging method in a drought scenario was found to be 0.68, which is substantially higher than the 0.52 from the discrete hedging method. Moreover, reduction of the maximum monthly shortage is another advantage of this rule. Fuzzy logic reduced 118 million cubic meters (MCM) of deficit in the Karun-3 reservoir alone. Moreover, as expected, the non-hedging SOP and WEAP model produced higher reliabilities, lower average storages, and less water losses through spills.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".