MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409604907 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-319

Optimized Allowance Allocation and Decision Support Based on L-BFGS Algorithm under a New Carbon Emission Trading Mechanism

2025· article· en· W4409604907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTongling University
KeywordsAllowance (engineering)Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithmMechanism (biology)Computer scienceCarbon fibersAlgorithmEmissions tradingMathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematicsEconomicsOperations managementGreenhouse gasPhysicsBiologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the global climate change problem is getting more and more serious, carbon emission quota allocation is more and more emphasized by countries all over the world, while the traditional carbon quota allocation program has the problem of single objective.In order to improve the scientificity and acceptability of the carbon quota allocation scheme, this paper constructs indicators and forms multiobjective functions to formulate the carbon quota allocation scheme from the three perspectives of efficiency, fairness and sustainability, and builds a multi-objective optimization model for carbon quota allocation and decision support.Aiming at the solution problem of the carbon quota allocation model, an improved hybrid swarm algorithm based on Gaussian perturbation, tournament selection strategy and proposed Newtonian local optimization search operator (L-BFGS) is proposed.The model is used to explore the quota allocation scheme for cities in the Bohai Economic Rim in 2030.In the three single-target pre-allocation schemes based on the principles of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability, the difference between the cities with the largest and smallest quotas is 319 Mt, 289 Mt, and 256 Mt, respectively, which lacks scientificity and rationality.In contrast, the allocation results of the multi-objective pre-allocation scheme proposed by the carbon quota allocation model in this paper are relatively balanced and the difference is small, which can eliminate the conflict between multiple principles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicE-commerce and Technology InnovationsFrench-language works237,207