MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229988500 · doi:10.23952/jano.1.2019.3.08

Representation of the Pareto front for heterogeneous multi-objective optimization

2019· article· en· W4229988500 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Multi-objective optimizationFront (military)Pareto principleComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematical economicsMathematicsEngineeringPolitical scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimization problems with multiple objectives which are expensive, i. e., where function evaluations are time consuming, are difficult to solve. Finding at least one locally optimal solution is already a difficult task. In case only one of the objective functions is expensive while the others are cheap, for instance, analytically given, this can be used in the optimization procedure. Using a trust-region approach and the Tammer-Weidner-functional for finding descent directions, in In this paper, we present three heuristic approaches, which allow to find additional optimal solutions of the multiobjective optimization problem and by that representations at least of parts of the Pareto front. We present the related theoretical results as well as numerical results on some test instances.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · 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