MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399531696 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303646

PAAD: Panelization algorithm for architectural designs

2024· article· en· W4399531696 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityLakehead UniversityUniversity of CalgarySaint Mary's University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceInefficiencyGenetic algorithmInterface (matter)Industrial engineeringAlgorithmEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the competitive nature of the construction industry, the efficiency of requirement analysis is important in enhancing client satisfaction and a company's reputation. For example, determining the optimal configuration of panels (generally called panelization) that form the structure of a building is one aspect of cost estimation. However, existing methods typically rely on rule-based approaches that may lead to suboptimal material usage, particularly in complex designs featuring angled walls and openings. Such inefficiency can increase costs and environmental impact due to unnecessary material waste. To address these challenges, this research proposes a Panelization Algorithm for Architectural Designs, referred to as PAAD, which utilizes a genetic evolutionary strategy built on the 2D bin packing problem. This method is designed to balance between strict adherence to manufacturing constraints and the objective of optimizing material usage. PAAD starts with multiple potential solutions within the predefined problem space, facilitating dynamic exploration of panel configurations. It approaches structural rules as flexible constraints, making necessary corrections in post-processing, and through iterative developments, the algorithm refines panel sets to minimize material use. The methodology is validated through an analysis against an industry implementation and expert-derived solutions, highlighting PAAD's ability to surpass existing results and reduce the need for manual corrections. Additionally, to motivate future research, a synthetic data generator, the architectural drawing encodings used, and a preliminary interface are also introduced. This not only highlights the algorithm's practical applicability but also encourages its use in real-world scenarios.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.158 · 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