MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115472598 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2009.2035630

Recourse-Based Facility-Location Problems in Hybrid Uncertain Environment

2009· article· en· W2115472598 on OpenAlexaff
Shuming Wang, Junzo Watada, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFuzzy Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationRandomnessMetaheuristicFuzzy logicTabu searchComputer scienceHybrid algorithm (constraint satisfaction)Particle swarm optimizationGenetic algorithmFacility location problemMathematicsStochastic programmingArtificial intelligenceConstraint programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to study facility-location problems in the presence of a hybrid uncertain environment involving both randomness and fuzziness. A two-stage fuzzy-random facility-location model with recourse (FR-FLMR) is developed in which both the demands and costs are assumed to be fuzzy-random variables. The bounds of the optimal objective value of the two-stage FR-FLMR are derived. As, in general, the fuzzy-random parameters of the FR-FLMR can be regarded as continuous fuzzy-random variables with an infinite number of realizations, the computation of the recourse requires solving infinite second-stage programming problems. Owing to this requirement, the recourse function cannot be determined analytically, and, hence, the model cannot benefit from the use of techniques of classical mathematical programming. In order to solve the location problems of this nature, we first develop a technique of fuzzy-random simulation to compute the recourse function. The convergence of such simulation scenarios is discussed. In the sequel, we propose a hybrid mutation-based binary ant-colony optimization (MBACO) approach to the two-stage FR-FLMR, which comprises the fuzzy-random simulation and the simplex algorithm. A numerical experiment illustrates the application of the hybrid MBACO algorithm. The comparison shows that the hybrid MBACO finds better solutions than the one using other discrete metaheuristic algorithms, such as binary particle-swarm optimization, genetic algorithm, and tabu search.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicFuzzy Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207