Multi-objective facility layout problems using BBO, NSBBO and NSGA-II metaheuristic 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
Quantitative and qualitative objectives are both significant to solve any facility layout problem (FLP), which is called as multi-objective FLP. Generally, quantitative factors are considered as material handling cost, time, etc., and qualitative factors are considered as closeness rating, hazardous movement between the facilities, etc. For solving and optimizing two or more objectives, two methods are available. First is weight approach method and second is nondominated sorting method. In the former method, suitable weights are given to each objective and combined in a single objective function; while in later method, the objectives are defined separately and by making comparison of the solutions on the non-dominance criteria, best Pareto-optimal solutions are obtained. In this paper, equal area multi-objective FLPs which are formulated as quadratic assignment problem (QAP) are considered and optimized using biogeography based optimization (BBO) algorithm and non-dominated sorting BBO (NSBBO) algorithm. BBO is one of the efficient metaheuristic techniques, developed to solve complex optimization problems. Computational results of BBO algorithm using weight approach illustrate its better performance compared to other methods while solving multi-objective FLPs. Furthermore to obtain Pareto optimal solutions, NSBBO algorithm is implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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