A Hybrid of Genetic Algorithm and Evidential Reasoning for Optimal Design of Project Scheduling: A Systematic Negotiation Framework for Multiple Decision-Makers
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
Traditional project scheduling methods inherently assume that the decision makers (DMs) are a unique entity whose acts are based on group rationality. However, in practice, DMs’ reliance on individual rationality and the wish to optimize their own objectives skew negotiations towards their preferred solutions. This makes conventional project scheduling solutions unrealistic. Here, a new two-step method is proposed that seeks to increase the overall efficiency of project schedules without violating individual rationality criteria, to find scheduling solutions that are acceptable to all DMs. First, a genetic algorithm is combined with evidential reasoning (ER) to obtain near optimal project schedule alternatives with respect to the priorities of each DM, separately. Second, the fallback bargaining method is used to help the DMs reach a consensus on an alternative with the highest group satisfaction. The proposed model is tested on a benchmark project scheduling problem with over 3.6 billion possible project scheduling alternatives. The results show that the model helps DMs when appointing their preferences using a well-organized procedure to provide a transparent view of each project schedule performance solution. Furthermore, the model is able to absorb the maximum support from the DMs, not necessarily a unique entity, by collecting all the self-optimizing DMs’ preferences and fairly allocating the benefits.
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 | 0.007 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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