MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409361355 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i27.35016

Constraint Optimisation Approaches for Designing Group-Living Captive Breeding Programmes

2025· article· en· W4409361355 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)Constraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceEngineeringChemistryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Captive breeding programs play a critical role in combating the ongoing biodiversity crisis by preserving the most endangered species and supporting reintroduction efforts. Maintaining the genetic health of captive populations requires careful management to prevent inbreeding and maximize the effective population size. Decisions about which males and females should be bred together are guided by the principle of minimizing relatedness between pairs. Methods to select breeding pairs are well developed, however, some species' ecology requires them to live in groups, and evaluating optimal groupings of multiple males and females that would be suitable to breed together is a more complex problem. Current computational tools to support the design of group-living captive breeding programs suffer from challenges of scalability and flexibility. In this paper we demonstrate the applicability of constraint programming (CP) approaches to optimize breeding groups to minimize relatedness. We present the example of the Galapagos giant tortoises as the test case used to develop our approach. Exploration of the needs of this captive breeding program has informed the development of our flexible approach to capture the constraints on viable captive breeding program design. Our findings have directly informed the implementation of new group configurations at the captive breeding centre. We further demonstrate that our approach is broadly applicable in other contexts through a second case study, providing multi-objective optimisation of a breeding program of canids. Through these case studies and an ablation study using synthetic datasets, we show that our constraint optimisation approach provides an expressive and generalizable means to support captive breeding program design, including scaling to large captive populations, which are currently intractable using current computational methods.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.181 · 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