An Investigation of Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Nonlinear Fractional Programming Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear Diophantine fuzzy set notion is the main foundation of the interactive method of tackling nonlinear fractional programming problems that is presented in this research. When the decision maker (DM) defines the degree α of α level sets, the max-min problem is solved in this interactive technique using Zimmermann’s min operator method. By using the updating technique of degree α, we can solve DM from the set of α-cut optimal solutions based on the membership function and non-membership function. Fuzzy numbers based on α-cut analysis bestowing the degree α given by DM can first be used to classify fuzzy Diophantine inside the coefficients. After this, a crisp multi-objective non-linear fractional programming problem (MONLFPP) is created from a Diophantine fuzzy nonlinear programming problem (DFNLFPP). Additionally, the MONLFPP can be reduced to a single-objective nonlinear programming problem (NLPP) using the idea of fuzzy mathematical programming, which can then be solved using any suitable NLPP algorithm. The suggested approach is demonstrated using a numerical example.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".