A Dimension Selection-Based Constrained Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using a Combination of Artificial Intelligence Methods
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
Abstract The computational cost of modern simulation-based optimization tends to be prohibitive in practice. Complex design problems often involve expensive constraints evaluated through finite element analysis or other computationally intensive procedures. To speed up the optimization process and deal with expensive constraints, a new dimension selection-based constrained multi-objective optimization (MOO) algorithm is developed combining least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, artificial neural networks, and grey wolf optimizer, named L-ANN-GWO. Instead of considering all variables at each iteration during the optimization, the proposed algorithm only adaptively retains the variables that are highly influential on the objectives. The unselected variables are adjusted to satisfy the constraints through a local search. With numerical benchmark problems and a simulation-based engineering design problem, L-ANN-GWO outperforms state-of-the-art constrained MOO algorithms. The method is then applied to solve a highly complex optimization problem, the design of a high-temperature superconducting magnet. The optimal solution shows significant improvement as compared to the baseline 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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