Talk:SORCER/Archive 3

Reply to 74.192.84.101 re citation counts.
Hi 74,

There are a lot of article (and deleted articles) along the lines of SORCER, and if we followed the notability guidelines in WP:NSOFT all of them would be deleted: there just isn't coverage in popular magazines and books for these kinds of topics. If we went to the other extreme and allowed peer-reviewed publications to count equally with magazines and books, we'd be flooded with low-quality articles on topics where there are only a handful of (mostly-ignored) papers we can use as citations.

So somewhere between these two extremes is something sensible. My own rule of thumb is that if a paper describing a CompSci topic has 100+ citations, then I have no problem justifying an article: other people outside of that research group think the topic is important enough to cite. If I see lots of papers with <25 citations, that looks to me like a research group is cranking out papers, but the impact outside of the immediate group hasn't been sufficient to warrant an article. (Note that a highly-cited article that only mentions the topic does not establish notability.)

I assume you're aware of how to use google scholar to get citation counts; let me know if you're not.

Did that answer your questions? I'm happy to continue the conversation here or by email if you prefer. Garamond Lethe t c  23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hadn't run across it before, but WP:NSOFT is a pretty reasonable essay, so although it doesn't trump WP:GNG, your point about pet projects that are WP:SPIP for some small research group is well-taken. For the benefit of myself, but more importantly, the others who may read later, here are the essentials as applied to the SORCER/exertions/etc topic.  An ideal software article should include:


 * 1)    A short overview.  See "Talk:SORCER" rewrite attempt, above.  SORCER is part grid-computing infrastructure, and part "other things", mainly used in the field of CAE/CAD/CAM for aerospace-engineers designing & simulating new vehicles/weapons/etc
 * 2)    An assertion of notability.  Nutshell:  SORCER makes the aerospace weapon-systems design-process dramatically more speedy/flexible/radical, via software-only automated-design-optimization-for-hypersonic-flight plus real-world-final-capability-prediction-from-CAD-blueprints.
 * 3)  ... Details:  as of 2012, SORCER's grid-computing stuff permits automated non-linear analysis of aircraft-designs, while they are still virtual (i.e. in CAD virtual-blueprint form), and accomplishes this in the same timeframe that traditional linear efforts take; cite is DaytonThesis.  (This means initial aerospace work can proceed without the need to physically prototype for wind-tunnel work, cutting out one-or-more loops from the  incremental-design-process.)
 * 4)  ... As of 2013, the USAF published some results on using SORCER to predict final manufacturing costs && final real-world offensive/defensive capabilities, again based purely on CAD-virtual-blueprints, no physical prototype required, no full-size physical testing of previous design-variants required; cite iosPress#1 conf-paper in print-proceedings.  (This means that relatively radical designs can be virtually prototyped, at low cost, and then virtually "flown" in simulation, using SORCER to speed up both the design-work and the sim-work... end result is a ton of innovative pure-software designs can be jammed out in a relatively brief timespan, with predictions of final value/ROI directly useful to the top brass && civilian leadership that decides which advanced aerospace-systems get the funding.)
 * 5)  ... Finally, although I don't understand Mandarin so I'm handicapped on summarizing the effort, there is a good sized R&D effort in China, which has been doing traffic-noise mapping since 2009 (around ten refereed academic papers), and there is now a 2012/2013/2014/2015 high-speed-rail effort funded by NSFC (not sure if any papers from this are non-classified).
 * 6)    A software infobox with information on version number, developer, etc.   This is tricksy, because SORCER has several independent forks (GE/Dassault/USAF/SorcerSoftOrg/Poland#1/Poland#2/PJIIT/Russian/Chinese ... that I know of!).   will be disappointed that the infobox is not likely to be very helpful to this article.  :-)    It makes sense to put the main open-source repo into the infobox, but I'm not sure if that is TTU, SorcerSoftOrg, or Poland#1 aka SorcerSoftCom-open-source-fork.
 * 7)    An appropriate comparison/timeline of significant release versions.  Yes, working on this, see my  upmteen questions above.  :-)

I've collected some data from Google Scholar (see above 17:15, 3 January 2014 in the 'notability discussion' section and the 'neologism' and also perhaps at 17:33, 3 January 2014 section), and come to agree with Garamond that SORCER/FIPER is not expecially academically wikiNotable as computer science ... rather, it is academically wikiNotable as computer aided engineering, methinks. WP:NSOFT says we need:


 * 1)  discussed in WP:RS as significant in its particular field (distributed collaborative computer aided engineering).  Methinks we've got this, see notability-discussion above.
 * 2)  subject of instruction at multiple schools; does not apply to software merely used in instruction.  We have a bit of this ... Professor Sobolewski has taught SORCER at TTU, PJIIT, and in several other countries... there is a list of his visiting-professorships in his sorcersoft.org resume, which I copied at one point, I'll paste it when I find it again.
 * 3)  multiple printed third-party manuals/tutorials/reviews.   Nope!  There is no such thing as SORCER For Dummies down at the local amazon store.  :-)
 * 4)  published software that has been recognized (by reviewers) as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.  There are a couple lit-survey-papers, see details above, but SORCER is not reviewed in PC Magazine or anything like that.

Any one of the four is good enough. Also, WP:NSOFT says this: "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." Since the spin-off during 2010, SORCER is officially open-source, and we have some evidence that the folks in Russia and China are using it... beyond what GoogleScholar shows. Additionally, we also have ongoing academic publications at conferences, and a new commercial entity. But methinks these latter two are not the story; the story is the CAE work done at government and university labs. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi 74. There is a lot of "above" to see.  Can you give me the pointers to the lit-review papers?  Thanks!  Garamond Lethe t c  20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Garamond, the green boxes at 17:15, 3 January 2014 and also perhaps at 17:33, 3 January 2014 should have what you need, use ctrl+f. There is compsci lit by Sobolewski and co-authors, but there is more significant breadth in the CAE lit (for aerospace-engineering and industrial-engineering folks rather than EECS folks).  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 74, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Which one of these is the "lit survey paper"?  Garamond Lethe t c  21:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my apologies, totally my reading-comprehension failure, I thought you were asking for the list of papers, aka *my* personal "lit-research" via goog-skol. My brain autocorrected a typo you hadn't actually made.  :-)     As for your answer, mhhhhmmmm, maybe  will have a better chance at answering that more fully.  The one *I* knew about (but see below for another I ran across a few hours ago) was a pair of U.Cranfield papers by Goteng et al from 2007, which is about the time SORCER was starting to publish heavily, and FIPER had just peaked and newly-published papers on FIPER were going downhill.  This particular lit-review paper is not cited by others, according to GoogleScholar, but the folks involved are independent academics from another subdiscipline, and the publisher is impeccable, which is why Beavercreekful brought it up.  Evolutionary Computing within Grid Environment, Springer, 2007, presented(?) at [Advances in] Evolutionary Computing for System Design, published in Studies in Computational Intelligence Volume 66, isbn 978-3-540-72376-9, pages 229-248, which is 19 pages total, not sure how much ink SORCER got.  Authors are Ashutosh Tiwari, Gokop Goteng, Rajkumar Roy.
 * Couple years later, Goteng got their PhD at U.Cranfield, and did a more serious lit-review, with more pages on FIPER-or-SORCER therein; the main TTU papers on exertion-oriented-programming and SORCER were both in 2007/2008, but methinks Goteng just talked about FIPER, because SORCER was still closed-source in 2009 (opened in 2010). Development of a Grid Service for Multi-objective Design Optimisation, Gokop Goteng PhD, "lit review & industry survey ... of grid services ... [including FIPER-or-SORCER]", 2009, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University.  Now, although Goteng's PhD has also gotten no goog-skol-cites so far, the thesis-cmte of 2009, and the peer-reviewers-slash-editors of 2007, made both Goteng-papers into an in-depth independent Reliable Source, distinct from anybody connected with SORCER/FIPER, and therefore counting towards WP:GNG.  That said....

That said, we can also look at the wider literature in that specific research-niche, and see that SORCER/FIPER did not become the rock-star of Multi-objective optimization within Evolutionary computing within Algorithms within Computer Science (plus application to economics and also financial markets). Yet, at least. SORCER is definitely known in the subfield, though mostly by aerospace-engineering folks, at present. FIPER is older and thus better-known, including by the "top" guy in the Multi-objective Optimization, based on google-scholar-raw-hit-counts at least. Multi-objective Optimisation "SORCER"
 * 1)  Aeroelastic Optimization of a Two-Dimensional Flapping Mechanism	DE Bryson, TA Weisshaar, RD Snyder… - … 국내연구성과| IP 제공정보 …, 2010 - arc.aiaa.org		Cited by 2	2010	AIAA for CAE, not ACM/IEEE for EECS
 * 2)  Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Preliminary Conceptual Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization Results	E Alyanak, R Kolonay, -, 2012 - arc.aiaa.org		Cited by 2	2012	AIAA for CAE, not ACM/IEEE for EECS
 * 3)  Standard Platform for Benchmarking Multidisciplinary Design Analysis and Optimization Architectures	J Gray, KT Moore, TA Hearn, BA Naylor - AIAA journal, 2013	Cited by 1	2013	AIAA for CAE, not ACM/IEEE for EECS

Multi-objective Optimisation "FIPER" Multi-objective Optimisation "FIPER"
 * 1) Current trends in evolutionary multi-objective optimization	K Deb - … Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 2007 - ijsmdo.org			Cited by 33	2007	6 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 2) MOB a European distributed multi-disciplinary design and optimisation project	AJ Morris - Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on …, 2002 - arc.aiaa.org	Cited by 28	2002	FIPER
 * 3) Design search and optimization in aerospace engineering		AJ Keane, JP Scanlan - … Transactions of the Royal …, 2007 - rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org	Cited by 11	2007
 * 4) Introduction to evolutionary multiobjective optimization	K Deb - Multiobjective Optimization, 2008 - Springer							Cited by 27 	2008	5 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 5) CAD based shape optimization for gas turbine component design		D Brujic, M Ristic, M Mattone, P Maggiore… - … Optimization, 2010 - Springer			Cited by 6	2010
 * 6) iSIGHT-FD, a tool for multi—objective Data Analysis		A Van der Velden, B Wujek, P Koch - … 프로시딩즈| 기술보고서| 해외연구 …, 2008 - arc.aiaa.org		Cited by 3	2008
 * 7) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Missile Based on FIPER Software	T LI, L GU - Computer Simulation, 2009 - en.cnki.com.cn					Cited by 1	2009
 * 8) Multidisciplinary optimization of naval ship design and mission effectiveness		J Vianese - 2004 - DTIC Document						Cited by 5	2004
 * 9) A hierarchical federated integration architecture for collaborative product development	H Sun, W Fan, W Shen, T Xiao… Journal …, 2012 - Taylor & Francis	Cited by 2	2012
 * 10) Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE) Past, present and Future		A Prijic, C Chapman, P Burton - Beograd 2005 EAEC European Automotive Congress			Cited by 2	2005
 * 11) Use of CAPE-OPEN Standard in US-UK Collaboration on Virtual Plant Simulation	SE Zitney - AIChE 2007 Annual Meeting, 4th Annual US CAPE- …, 2007 - co-lan.org		Cited by 2	2007
 * 12) Towards a standardized engineering framework for distributed, collaborative product realization	HJ Choi, JH Panchal, JK Allen, Proceedings, 2003 gatech.edu	Cited by 18	2003	FIPER
 * 13) PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW MODELLING TECHNIQUES		D Brujic, M Ristic, M Mattone, P Maggiore… - 2005 - modefrontier.de						Cited by 1 	2005
 * 14) Ein Beitrag zur interdisziplinären Prozessintegration und automatischen Mehrzieloptimierung am Beispiel einer Verdichterrotorschaufel, D Otto - 2009 - opus.kobv.de	Cited by 1	2009
 * 15) Developing a Design Space Model Using a Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Schema in a Product Lifecycle Management System…	NL Fife - 2005 - Citeseer	Cited by 3	2005
 * 16) Facilitating meta-design via separation of problem, product, and process information	JH Panchal, MG Fernández… - 2005 ASME …, 2005 - westinghouse.marc.gatech.edu	Cited by 6	2005
 * 17) Computational workflow management for conceptual design of complex systems: an air-vehicle design perspective	LK Balachandran - 2007 - dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk	Cited by 2	2007
 * 18) Addressing Geometry Needs of Systems Engineering with DaVinci Software	G Roth, J Livingston, C Dailey, A Cline - 49th AIAA, 2011 - arc.aiaa.org		Cited by 1	2011
 * 19) An adaptable service-based framework for distributed product realization	JH Panchal, HJ Choi, JK Allen, D Rosen… - … Product Design and …, 2007 - Springer	Cited by 5	2007
 * 20) Feasibility assessment in preliminary design using Pareto sets		A Gurnani, S Ferguson… - ASME Design …, 2005 - does.eng.buffalo.edu			Cited by 11	2005	Gurnani#1
 * 21) An Approach to Feasibility Assessment In Preliminary Design		S Ferguson, A Gurnani, J Donndelinger… - ASME Design …, 2005 - atsv.psu.edu			Cited by 5	2005	Gurnani#2
 * 22) Design and analysis of computer experiments in multidisciplinary design optimization: a review 		TW Simpson, V Toropov, V Balabanov…, 2008, aiaa.org	Cited by 106	2008	21 cites/yr for this lit-review by AIAA ... gold?  Could not find full paper online, paywall shows only first page, U.Leuv(sp) used to have PDF but site was offline when I checked.  Author emails listed, maybe one will help out?
 * 23) e-Design Systems		BO Nnaji, Y Wang, KY Kim - The Handbook of Industrial and …, 2005 - 203.158.253.140							Cited by 2	2005
 * 24) Thermo-economic assessment of externally fired micro-gas turbine fired by natural gas and biomass	AM Pantaleo, SM Camporeale, N Shah, 2013 - Elsevier		Cited by 3	2013
 * 25) Towards a design support system for distributed product realization		JH Panchal - 2003 - srl.gatech.edu							Cited by 3	2003
 * 26) Cost-Effective Product Realization-Service-Oriented Architecture for Integrated Product Life-Cycle Management		BO Nnaji, Y Wang, KY Kim - 7th IFAC, 2004	Cited by 8	2004
 * 27) Nesting automated design modules in an interconnected framework			JM Young - 2005 - Citeseer							Cited by 3	2005
 * 28) A design tool architecture for the rapid evaluation of product design tradeoffs in an Inernet-based system modeling environment	JJA Wronski - 2005 - mit.edu	Cited by 8	2005
 * 29) Multi-objective evolutionary optimization in time-changing environments		I Hatzakis - 2007 - dspace.mit.edu						Cited by 2	2007

Multi-objective Optimisation ("M. Sobolewski" OR "M Sobolewski" OR "Mike Sobolewski" OR "Michael Sobolewski" OR "Sobolewski, M" OR "Sobolewski, M" OR "Sobolewski, Mike" OR "Sobolewski, Michael")
 * 1) Transmission systems design--decisions, multi-criteria optimization in distributed environment	J Pokojski, K Niedziółka - Proceedings, 2006 - dl.acm.org	Cited by 3 	2006
 * 2) Multi-objective Optimization Model and Algorithms for Partner Selection		MM Hassan, EN Huh - Dynamic Cloud Collaboration Platform, 2013 - Springer	Cited by 1 	2013	Hassan#1
 * 3) Dynamic Cloud Collaboration Platform: A Market-oriented Approach		MM Hassan, EN Huh - 2013 - books.google.com						Cited by 1 	2013	Hassan#2
 * 4) A constraint-based approach to feasibility assessment in preliminary design	A Gurnani, S Ferguson, K Lewis, J Donndelinger - AI EDAM, 2006 - Cambridge Univ Press	Cited by 17	2006	Gurnani#3 ... 2.4 cites/yr
 * 5) Multi-objective optimization of multicast overlays for collaborative applications	K Rzadca, JTT Yong, A Datta - Computer Networks, 2010 - Elsevier		Cited by 3 	2010
 * 6) Product, process and methodology systematization to handle structural and computational complexity in product realization	B Prasad, 2001 - Wiley Online Library	Cited by 2 	2001
 * 7) Recent advances in engineering design optimisation: Challenges and future trends	R Roy, S Hinduja, R Teti - CIRP Annals-Mfg Technology, 2008 - Elsevier		Cited by 75	2008	15 cites/yr by R.Roy DeptMfg U.Cranfield, S.Hinduja AeroEng U.Manchester, R.Teti MatEng&ProductionEng U.Naples.  See analysis in section green box, immediately below.
 * 8) A hierarchical decision model to select quality control strategies for a complex product	Y Liu, KW Hipel, 2012 - ieeexplore.ieee.org				Cited by 4 	2012

Multi-objective Optimisation .... aka this particular sub-sub-field in general, only the top 20 hits-with-cites are shown
 * 1) Multi-objective optimization		K Deb - Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary …, 2001 - netscale.cse.nd.edu						Cited by 8354	2001	700 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 2) Multi-objective optimization		K Deb - Search Methodologies, 2005 - Springer											Cited by  122	2005	15 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 3) A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II	K Deb, S Agrawal, A Pratap, 2000 - repository.ias.ac.in		Cited by 2796	2000	200 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 4) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering		RT Marler, JS Arora - Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 2004 - Springer	Cited by  916	2004
 * 5) A Multi-Objective Algorithm based upon Particle Swarm Optimisation, an Efficient Data Structure and Turbulence.     JE Fieldsend, EQ Uk, S Singh - 2002 - Citeseer	Cited by  258	2002
 * 6) A critical survey of performance indices for multi-objective optimisation	T Okabe, Y Jin, B Sendhoff, CEC'03, 2003 - ieeexplore.ieee.org				Cited by  123	2003
 * 7) Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial	A Konak, DW Coit, AE Smith - Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006 - Elsevier		Cited by  778	2006
 * 8) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: a historical view of the field	CA Coello Coello - Computational Intelligence Mag, IEEE, 2006 - ieeexplore.ieee.org	Cited by  477	2006
 * 9) Strategies for finding good local guides in multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO)	S Mostaghim, J Teich - …, SIS'03., 2003 - ieeexplore.ieee.org	Cited by  404	2003
 * 10) Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models	PO Yapo, HV Gupta, S Sorooshian - Journal of hydrology, 1998 - Elsevier					Cited by  570	1998	classic
 * 11) Multi‐objective combinatorial optimization problems: A survey		EL Ulungu, J Teghem - Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision …, 1994 - Wiley Online Library		Cited by  333	1994	classic
 * 12) Scalable multi-objective optimization test problems		K Deb, L Thiele, M Laumanns… - Proceedings of the …, 2002 - repository.ias.ac.in			Cited by  554	2002	50 cites/yr for rockstar K.Deb
 * 13) Multi-class ROC analysis from a multi-objective optimisation perspective		RM Everson, JE Fieldsend - Pattern Recognition Letters, 2006 - Elsevier		Cited by   75	2006
 * 14) PDE: a Pareto-frontier differential evolution approach for multi-objective optimization problems	HA Abbass, R Sarker, C Newton, 2001. Proc, ieeexplore.ieee.org	Cited by  332	2001
 * 15) Genetic local search for multi-objective combinatorial optimization		A Jaszkiewicz - European journal of operational research, 2002 - Elsevier		Cited by  460	2002
 * 16) Fundamentals of computational swarm intelligence		AP Engelbrecht - 2005 - lavoisier.fr									Cited by 1168	2005
 * 17) Multi-objective optimisation using the bees algorithm		DT Pham, A Ghanbarzadeh - Proceedings of IPROMS 2007 …, 2007 - people.stfx.ca				Cited by   59	2007
 * 18) Multi-objective optimisation applied to industrial energy problems		G Leyland - 2002 - lania.mx								Cited by   99	2002
 * 19) An evolution strategy with probabilistic mutation for multi-objective optimisation	S Huband, P Hingston, L While…, CEC'03. The …, 2003 - ieeexplore.ieee.org	Cited by   57	2003
 * 20) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems		CAC Coello, GB Lamont, DA Van Veldhuisen - 2007 - books.google.com				Cited by 3709	2007

Deeper analysis of the 75-cites-total paper which mentioned both Sobolewski and Kolonay. It turns out to be a survey-paper on engineering design optimization, which is a superset of multi-objective optimization, which in turn is a superset of mechanical/industrial multi-objective optimization (where FIPER and SORCER fit into this picture). Recent advances in engineering design optimisation, 2008, by R.Roy DeptMfg U.Cranfield, S.Hinduja AeroEng U.Manchester, R.Teti ProductionEng U.Naples. Stuff in the double-parens is my interpretation, take with a grain of salt. :-) Section 10. Future challenges in algorithmic engineering design optimisation.  Considering the growth in publications using the algorithmic approach for EDO, this approach has the best potential to improve a design. Fig. 10 shows lack of popularity of algorithmic approach for mechanical systems design optimisation compared to non-mechanical systems. ((JPEG:  papers published per year, 1997 through 2006, in the field of design-optimization-generally-aka-mostly-for-software-apps versus the subfield of design-optimization-for-mechanical-parts-aka-trains-planes-and-automobiles.  400/yr to 1100/yr strong growth for non-mechanical EDO, versus only 50/yr to 200/yr tepid growth for mechanical EDO... which is FIPER and SORCER's speciality.))  This section identifies the major challenges of algorithmic approaches for real life optimisation and then comments on the possible reasons for lack of interest in the mechanical systems design community. The major challenges are:
 * 1) 1. Real life features: .... ((MATH == applied math context versus theoretical computer science context ... elegant algorithms often have pathological corner cases in practice that make the airplane-design go awry))
 * 2) 2. Model development:  .... ((CAD&CAE == fundamental features))
 * 3) 3. Designer confidence:  .... ((EECS == GUI design + knowledge-based systems AI))
 * 4) 4. Design improvement process: .... ((MBA == management buy-in and process re-engineering and other people-problems))
 * 5) 5. ((CAD&CAE == applied grid computing)) Computational expense of design evaluation: One approach to deal with computationally expensive design evaluation models is to develop surrogate models to replace the expensive design models. Increasingly there is demand to work with more accurate models and find ways to deal with the computational costs. In line with this there is increasing interest to solve real life large-scale design optimisation problems. Recently, use of grid and distributed computing is beginning to address this issue for large-scale optimisation problems.[141,142] This is discussed in more detail in Section 11. ((typo in original... they said 12 but obviously meant 11.))
 * 6) 6. ((CAD&CAE == advanced statistical features)) Qualitative design space: .... ((this is what Kolonay and Sobolewski are working on nowadays... predicting vehicle-defensive-capabilities *directly* from the raw CAD model giving length/weight/etc physical-data))
 * 7) 7. ((CAD&CAE == advanced simulation-based features)) Integration with CAD and simulation: The bidirectional interface between feature-based parametric CAD models and optimisation/analysis models that ensure automatic bidirectional conversions do not exist at present. Several researchers have identified this deficiency.[143,144]  Nosner noted[143] that after the shape or topology optimisation stage, the design engineer still has to interact with the results to ensure that features are integrated into the CAD model in an appropriate way. Researchers[143,145] have noticed that the lack of feature information prevents the application of meaningful engineering constraints. Addressing these needs requires high level geometric reasoning such as feature technology/recognition to be more integrated into the analysis algorithms and the optimisation procedure to achieve what has been termed feature-based optimisation.[145] When these are addressed, several advantages will make optimisation techniques more attractive to engineers in industry who are not experts in optimisation techniques. For example, most loading and boundary conditions can be automatically extracted from feature-based CAD model of a product. Also, it would be easier to automatically generate intuitive visualisation which has been identified by Hernandez et al.[146] as a key need in order for engineers in industry to be comfortable with the use of optimisation techniques. The application of geometric modelling and reasoning will allow analysis (e.g. FEA), optimisation algorithms and parametric feature-based CAD systems to be transparently and intuitively integrated. In the short term, this may mean an integrated information backbone or infrastructure[147((==Kolonay/Burton'04))] that is flexible to support changes in geometry, meshes etc and able to dynamically link with FEA or optimisation and CAD systems through data exchange of native parametric CAD formats. In the long-term, it would require an extendible integrated information infrastructure for CAD/FEA/Optimisation based on international interoperability standards such as STEP (ISO 10303).
 * 8) 8. Selecting an appropriate optimisation algorithm: .... ((EECS == algorithms))
 * 9) 9. Dynamic optimisation: .... ((EECS == evolutionary computing))
 * 10) 10. Education of designers: .... ((EDU == pedagogy for aero-engineering))
 * 11) 11. Inherent uncertainty: .... ((EECS == fuzzy sets and other AI techniques))

Section 11. Future approaches to engineering design optimisation. It is observed from the analysis presented above there are three major areas of improvement when it comes to use of computing to address engineering design optimisation: improve efficiency and speed of optimisation and use human knowledge effectively where necessary. The two following sections will discuss role of Grid and distributed computing to speed up the optimisation and involve multiple experts in the design process; and emergent computing techniques for better efficiency and speed in the optimisation. '''Subsection 11.1. Engineering design optimisation using grid and distributed computing. Large-scale EDO of complex mechanical systems such as aerodynamic wing design and gas turbines involve complex processes with multiple iterative steps that require huge data and computational resources to obtain satisfactory optimum solutions.[153((==Goel/Talya/Sobolewski'''07)),154]  The use of control theory and parallel distributed computing has proved to greatly improve the speed of aerodynamic shape optimisation of supersonic aircraft design.[155]   ...This section presents the advantages of using high performance computing (HPC) and grid computing for the optimisation. ... Subsection 11.2. Emergent computing techniques. Swarm intelligence was identified as a promising new.... Simulated annealing is another popular optimization technique.... Other recent approaches with potential.... Quantum computing is....

Section 12. Summary and concluding remarks. EDO ((engineering design optimization)) has evolved with time from a totally manual process to computer-based approaches. This paper proposes a classification of the optimisation problems....

As you can see from the redlinks inside the two most recent green boxen, wikipedia doesn't have any articles on the EECS-and-industrial-engineering subfield known as engineering design optimization, though we do have an article about the parent-field of Engineering_optimization ... which has four sentences. Oven on the EECS side, doing a bit of searching for Kalyanmoy Deb and Carlos Artemio Coello Coello, the academic rockstars of this subfield, it turns out we *do* actually have an article on multi-objective optimization, but it spends 95% of the article on the mathematics of software-only MOO, as used by quants in the stock market (or the economics department). That said, it *does* mention in two paragraph at Multi-objective_optimization that sometimes MOO is used in the real world, and gives one single ref, Optimization issues of the broke management system in papermaking by Ropponen Ritala Pistikopoulos in 2011 (total of 8 cites in goog-skol). Sigh. List_of_optimization_software has one (1) single aerospace package, for spaceships. Sigh.

Anyhoo, the main point here is, SORCER-fka-FIPER was already of WP:NOTEWORTHY mention by K.Deb the rockstar of MOO, back in 2008; that guy has thousands and thousands of cites. Sobolewski and Kolonay are both in the lit-survey paper on the future of engineering design optimization as of 2008, and although the software they had both been jointly working on since the previous millenium was not specifically named, clearly they and their work are both smack-dab in the middle of #5 and #6 and #7. Are those WP:N refs for SORCER? No. Do with have a huge long list of WP:N peer-reviewed fact-checked serious professional academic papers which cover SORCER and FIPER and exertions and all that jazz, in depth? Absolutely.

On three continents (so far!) FIPER and SORCER play a significant part in real-world mechanical/industrial CAE both classified and unclassified, the latter of which Roy et al claims was about 200 of the 1100 papers published in the engineering-design-optimization subfield back in 2008. The problem here is not that FIPER and SORCER are "too small" to be in wikipedia, the problem is that wikipedia doesn't have enough editors to make the obviously-necessary articles, and our wikiCulture doesn't seem to want those editors, either. We've been driving editors away since 2007, when the five bazillion rules were codified. We have 30k active wikipedians making 5+edits/mo, trying to satisfy 500m unique readers/mo. We spend most of our time arguing about whether we can "allow" an article on something like SORCER... because we don't have the personnel to document *every* important research area... or because not *enough* newspapers have yet reported on the topic... or because *only* newspapers have reported on the topic... or because this or because that.

The worst part is, we *have* the people who can fill the gaps, we have the experts, they came to us, and are obviously more than happy to do so. :-/    If only we'll let them. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * First, a note on being an effective editor: if someone asks you for a citation, give them the citations.  Not paragraphs.  We're all volunteers here and we're all trying to shepherd dozens or hundreds of articles.  This is your passion.  I understand that.  But the best way you can help us get the article to a better state is by making your replies succinct.


 * From what I'm seeing here, a FIPER article would be uncontroversial and the SORCER material could be contained within that. Would that be ok with you?  Garamond Lethe t c  19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)