A Cuckoo Search Algorithm to Solve Transfer Line Balancing Problems With Different Cutting Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An automated transfer line balancing problem is investigated in this paper. The line produces a complex part at a high volume, such as cylinder heads, and incorporates identical machines that can be operated under different cutting conditions. The selection of cutting conditions significantly influences productivity and the cost of the transfer line. The production of cylinder heads requires machining different operations within a given takt time and satisfying precedence, inclusion, and exclusion relationships. The operations are located on different faces of the cylinder head and are processed by different cutting tools. The line balancing problem is studied to identify the optimal cutting conditions, number of machines and tools, and machining sequence of operations. The objective is to design a balanced transfer line at a minimum machining and tooling cost, and also with minimum nonproductive time. The problem is represented by a goal-programming model and solved for small transfer line configurations through linearization. An improved cuckoo search algorithm via Levy flight is developed to solve large-scale instances. Results of the cuckoo algorithm are promising since it reached optimal and close-to-optimal solutions to small problems and surpassed the results of a random local search approach for instances of medium and large problems.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".