The use of reinforced learning to support multidisciplinary design in the AEC industry: Assessing the utilization of Markov Decision Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the design practice in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry continues to be a creative activity, approaching the design problem from a perspective of the decision-making science has remarkable potentials that manifest in the delivery of high-performing sustainable structures. These possible gains can be attributed to the myriad of decision-making tools and technologies that can be implemented to assist design efforts, such as artificial intelligence (AI) that combines computational power and data wisdom. Such combination comes to extreme importance amid the mounting pressure on the AEC industry players to deliver economic, environmentally friendly, and socially considerate structures. Despite the promising potentials, the utilization of AI, particularly reinforced learning (RL), to support multidisciplinary design endeavours in the AEC industry is still in its infancy. Thus, the present research discusses developing and applying a Markov Decision Process (MDP) model, an RL application, to assist the preliminary multidisciplinary design efforts in the AEC industry. The experimental work shows that MDP models can expedite identifying viable design alternatives within the solutions space in multidisciplinary design while maximizing the likelihood of finding the optimal design.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".