A novel robust evaluation approach to improve systematic behavior of failure safety in water supply system under various ellipsoid uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study proposes a novel robust optimization approach for an integrated water supply system, wherein the decision-makers attempt to improve failure safety of system under various uncertainty strategies. To cope with uncertainty, the ellipsoid uncertainty set is assumed to evaluate the best feasible solution in the direction of water supply under various strategies. We assessed the case of Hamoun watershed, a water-stressed watershed in southeastern of Iran, to evaluate the developed robust optimization model. In the following, the comparative feasibility under uncertainty levels is conducted to analyze the impacts of simulation strategies on the status of robust model. Based on the final results, the reliability of the model's objective functions experienced an increasing trend ( $$58.3\%$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>58.3</mml:mn> <mml:mo>%</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ), and the objective function values under the uncertainty strategies is greatly improved. The findings of the analysis show that the robust strategies in response to the failure safety achieve outstanding optimal objectives under uncertainty.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".