...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences >A review of the status and use of validation procedures for heuristics used in forest planning
【24h】

A review of the status and use of validation procedures for heuristics used in forest planning

机译：审查森林规划中使用的启发式验证程序的状态和使用

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

While there exist clear methods for validating and ensuring the quality of solutions generated by forest planning heuristic techniques, the use of these methods in the literature varies from one situation to the next. Based on our experience developing and using heuristic forest planning techniques, we describe six levels of heuristic validation that are currently in use, ranging from no validation (Level 1) on one end of the spectrum, to the comparison of heuristic technique solutions with an exact solution obtained using mathematical programming methods (Level 6) on the other end. The reasons why authors may choose or reviewers may require levels of validation are proposed. We do not believe that all research papers should be subjected to the highest level of validation, but suggest that authors of papers on forest planning techniques and reviewers associated with peer-reviewed journals try to place the level of validation within the larger scientific context, then determine an appropriate level of validation. Admittedly, this is problematic for review decisions, given the fact that reviewers may differ in opinion of what is appropriate. Four brief cases are provided to help one think through these issues. Ultimately, we hope that this discussion will lead to a reasoned approach for the use of validation processes in conjunction with the presentation of heuristic techniques, rather than the current ad-hoc process that, on one hand, relies on the valuable and careful thoughts of the reviewers, yet on the other hand, may be uneven in application. MCFNS-1:26-37.
机译：虽然存在验证和确保由森林规划启发式技术生成的解决方案质量的明确方法，但文献中对这些方法的使用因一种情况而异。根据我们在开发和使用启发式森林规划技术方面的经验，我们描述了当前使用的六个级别的启发式验证，范围从一端的无验证（第1级）到比较精确的启发式技术解决方案另一端使用数学编程方法（级别6）获得的解决方案。提出了作者可能选择或审稿人可能要求验证级别的原因。我们不认为所有研究论文都应该接受最高级别的验证，但建议有关森林规划技术的论文的作者以及与同行评审期刊相关的审稿人应尝试将验证水平置于更大的科学范围内，然后确定适当的验证级别。诚然，考虑到审阅者对适当内容的看法可能有所不同，这对于审阅决定是有问题的。提供了四个简短的案例，以帮助人们思考这些问题。最终，我们希望这种讨论将导致一种合理的方法，结合验证方法的使用来使用验证过程，而不是一方面依赖于宝贵的，谨慎的思想的当前临时过程。另一方面，审稿人的申请可能会不均衡。 MCFNS-1：26-37。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号