A Fuzzy Robust Optimization Model for Waste Allocation Planning Under Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a fuzzy robust optimization (FRO) model was developed for supporting municipal solid waste management under uncertainty. The Development Zone of the City of Dalian, China, was used as a study case for demonstration. Comparing with traditional fuzzy models, the FRO model made improvement by considering the minimization of the weighted summation among the expected objective values, the differences between two extreme possible objective values, and the penalty of the constraints violation as the objective function, instead of relying purely on the minimization of expected value. Such an improvement leads to enhanced system reliability and the model becomes especially useful when multiple types of uncertainties and complexities are involved in the management system. Through a case study, the applicability of the FRO model was successfully demonstrated. Solutions under three future planning scenarios were provided by the FRO model, including (1) priority on economic development, (2) priority on environmental protection, and (3) balanced consideration for both. The balanced scenario solution was recommended for decision makers, since it respected both system economy and reliability. The model proved valuable in providing a comprehensive profile about the studied system and helping decision makers gain an in-depth insight into system complexity and select cost-effective management strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".