Resource Optimization Using Combined Simulation and Genetic Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new approach for resource optimization by combining a flow-chart based simulation tool with a powerful genetic optimization procedure. The proposed approach determines the least costly, and most productive, amount of resources that achieve the highest benefit/cost ratio in individual construction operations. To further incorporate resource optimization into construction planning, various genetic algorithms (GA)-optimized simulation models are integrated with commonly used project management software. Accordingly, these models are activated from within the scheduling software to optimize the plan. The result is a hierarchical work-breakdown-structure tied to GA-optimized simulation models. Various optimization experiments with a prototype system on two case studies revealed its ability to optimize resources within the real-life constraints set in the simulation models. The prototype is easy to use and can be used on large size projects. Based on this research, computer simulation and genetic algorithms can be an effective combination with great potential for improving productivity and saving construction time and cost.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it