A two‐leveled multi‐objective symbiotic evolutionary algorithm for the hub and spoke location problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider a hub and spoke location problem (HSLP) with multiple scenarios. The HSLP consists of four subproblems: hub location, spoke location, spoke allocation, and customer allocation Under multiple scenarios, we aim to provide a set of well‐distributed solutions, close to the true Pareto optimal solutions, for decision makers. We present a novel multi‐objective symbiotic evolutionary algorithm to solve the HSLP under multiple scenarios. The algorithm is modeled as a two‐leveled structure, which we call the two‐leveled multi‐objective symbiotic evolutionary algorithm (TMSEA). In TMSEA, two main processes imitating symbiotic evolution and endosymbiotic evolution are introduced to promote the diversity and convergence of solutions. The evolutionary components suitable for each sub‐problem are defined. TMSEA is tested on a variety of test‐bed problems and compared with existing multi‐objective evolutionary algorithms. The experimental results show that TMSEA is promising in solution convergence and diversity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".