New Approach to Solving Fuzzy Multiobjective Linear Fractional Optimization Problems
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
In this paper, an iterative approach based on the use of fuzzy parametric functions is proposed to find the best preferred optimal solution to a fuzzy multiobjective linear fractional optimization problem. From this approach, the decision-maker imposes tolerance values or termination conditions for each parametric objective function. Indeed, the fuzzy parametric values are computed iteratively, and each fuzzy fractional objective is transformed into a fuzzy non-fractional parametric function using these values of parameters. The core value of fuzzy numbers is used to transform the fuzzy multiobjective non-fractional problem into a deterministic multiobjective non-fractional problem, and the ε-constraint approach is employed to obtain a linear single objective optimization problem. Finally, by setting the value of parameter ε, the Dangtzig simplex method is used to obtain an optimal solution. Therefore, the number of solutions is equal to the number of used values, and the optimal solution is chosen according to the preference of the decision-maker. We have provided a didactic example to highlight the step of our approach and its numerical performances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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