MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211059871 · doi:10.1115/1.4044525

Knowledge-Assisted Optimization for Large-Scale Design Problems: A Review and Proposition

2019· review· en· W4211059871 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDesign knowledgeScale (ratio)Industrial engineeringEngineering optimizationManagement scienceOptimization problemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Practicing design engineers often have certain knowledge about a design problem. However, in the last decades, the design optimization community largely treats design functions as black-boxes. This paper discusses whether and how knowledge can help with optimization, especially for large-scale optimization problems. Existing large-scale optimization methods based on black-box functions are first reviewed, and the drawbacks of those methods are briefly discussed. To understand what knowledge is and what kinds of knowledge can be obtained and applied in a design, the concepts of knowledge in both artificial intelligence (AI) and in the area of the product design are reviewed. Existing applications of knowledge in optimization are reviewed and categorized. Potential applications of knowledge for optimization are discussed in more detail, in hope to identify possible directions for future research in knowledge-assisted optimization (KAO).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.257 · 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