MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Novel Method for Finding the Shortest Path With Two Objectives Under Trapezoidal Intuitionistic Fuzzy Arc Costs

2023· article· en· W4388861964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Vidhya, A. Saraswathi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShortest path problemVaguenessMathematical optimizationConstrained Shortest Path FirstComputer scienceLongest path problemNode (physics)K shortest path routingFuzzy numberPath (computing)Fuzzy logicScheduling (production processes)MathematicsFuzzy setTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Shortest Path Problem is a core problem in network optimization, with applications in various scientific and engineering fields, such as communication, transportation, routing, scheduling, and computer networks. Many studies and algorithms have been proposed to solve the traditional shortest path problem, but they often fail to provide optimal solutions when dealing with the uncertainties and vagueness that exist in real-world situations. This study aims to address the Bi-objective Shortest Path Problem using intuitionistic fuzzy arc numbers. The main goal is to find the path that minimizes both cost and time between a given source node and destination node. To handle the complexities introduced by trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, an accuracy function is used. The study suggests a simple yet effective method to solve this problem and shows its efficiency through a numerical example. The research tries to offer innovative solutions for optimizing paths in scenarios where cost and time factors are important, navigating the complex landscape of uncertainty inherent in practical applications.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207