The use of reinforced learning to support multidisciplinary design in the AEC industry: Assessing the utilization of Markov Decision Process
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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