Evaluation Heuristics Sample Clauses

Evaluation Heuristics. The other aspect of the ASIL optimisation algorithm is the evaluation heuristics. These are used to evaluate each individual in a population to determine their “fitness” scores – high-scoring individuals are kept, poor-scoring ones are not. Typically the optimisation problem itself is defined in terms of objectives – e.g. minimise cost, maximise safety – and thus we need to be able to evaluate according to those objectives. In a single objective approach, multiple evaluation scores are combined into one value, which is then to be either maximised or minimised. In multiple objective approaches, the scores remain separate and can be maximised or minimised individually. In the case of the ASIL optimisation, there are two objectives to consider. The first is cost: how expensive a particular ASIL allocation might be to actually implement. This need not be particularly accurate or realistic – it only matters that it helps the algorithm to differentiate between different solutions. In our case, we chose a simple heuristic that scores each ASIL in an allocation like so:  QM = 0 points  ASIL A = 1 point  ASIL B = 10 points  ASIL C = 100 points  ASIL D = 1000 points Other schemes are also possible, including linear scales (e.g. A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4) and powers of two (2, 4, 8, 16 etc.). The ASIL values in an SRA are then summed together to find a total cost for that particular SRA. Thus an SRA of AABD will get a cost of 1012, whereas AACC would have a cost of 202. The other heuristic to consider is the number of invalid (failed) allocations. Each cut set in the FTA results is subject to one or more DSR – derived safety requirement – that indicates the minimum ASIL that has to apply to that cut set in order to meet the overall system safety requirements. Unlike the exhaustive ASIL decomposition algorithm, which guarantees that all SRAs will be valid, the optimisation makes no such guarantees (and in fact doing so could hamper the algorithm’s performance and success). Thus we award 1 penalty point for every cut set that does not meet its DSRs; the goal is obviously to obtain an SRA with 0 penalty points.
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Evaluation Heuristics

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • Evaluators The success of a program of evaluation depends upon a high level of skill and training of all participants in the process. The District shall provide annual training on the Colorado State Educator Evaluation System and ongoing training on inter-rater reliability using approved materials from the Colorado Department of Education. As required by Colorado law, all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by the Department of Education.

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.

  • Evaluations A. District management shall direct the evaluation of all permanent bargaining unit members no less than once every two years and probationary bargaining unit members no less than twice per year. Bargaining unit members who have been employed with VUSD for at least ten (10) years and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards, may be evaluated at least every five (5) years, if the administrative evaluator and certificated employee being evaluated agree. The certificated employee or the administrative evaluator may withdraw consent of this agreement at any time (EC 44664 (a) (3)). B. The written procedures for evaluations that are currently in effect shall be maintained by the District until the bargaining unit negotiates and ratifies new procedures. The present procedures are in Appendix A. They include: 1. The evaluator shall be an immediate supervisor or any other management or supervisory employee, who is designated by District management. 2. Bargaining unit members may utilize peer review in lieu of management evaluation with principal approval. 3. Those bargaining unit members who are regularly scheduled to be evaluated will be notified by the evaluator no later than October 1st of each school year. Such notice will contain a brief explanation as to the procedures for evaluations 4. One-half of the permanent staff will be formally evaluated each year. a. Pre-Conference Guidelines (for Temporary, Probationary and Permanent Bargaining Unit Members) 1. A pre-conference for bargaining unit members to be evaluated will be held by October 31. The purpose of the pre-conference is to review the Standards for Bargaining Unit Members assignment and to determine the evaluation focus. At that time the evaluator and the bargaining unit member may agree that some elements of the standards are not applicable (NA) to the employee’s assignment and may mark them NA at that time. 2. If there is disagreement about which of the elements is not applicable (NA), the parties may invite the Assistant Superintendent of Certificated Human Resources to assist in resolving the differences. The Assistant Superintendent shall recommend alternatives to the unit member and evaluator.

  • EVALUATION AND MONITORING The ORGANIZATION agrees to maintain books, records and other documents and evidence, and to use accounting procedures and practices that sufficiently and properly support the complete performance of and the full compliance with this Agreement. The ORGANIZATION will retain these supporting books, records, documents and other materials for at least three (3) calendar years following the year in which the Agreement expires. The COUNTY and/or the State Auditor and any of their representatives shall have full and complete access to these books, records and other documents and evidence retained by the ORGANIZATION respecting all matters covered in and under this Agreement, and shall have the right to examine such during normal business hours as often as the COUNTY and/or the State Auditor may deem necessary. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, and records of matters covered by this Agreement. These access and examination rights shall last for three calendar years following the year in which the Agreement expires. The COUNTY intends without guarantee for its agents to use reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that related records and documents provided by the ORGANIZATION are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. The COUNTY will, however, disclose or make this material available to those authorized by/in the above paragraph or permitted under the provisions of Chapter 42.56 RCW without notice to the ORGANIZATION. The ORGANIZATION shall cooperate with and freely participate in any other monitoring or evaluation activities pertinent to this Agreement that the COUNTY finds needing to be conducted.