Comparison Study of Discrete Optimization Problem Using Meta-Heuristic Approaches: A Case Study
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
This paper presents the performance comparison of five meta-heuristic algorithms to solve a discrete optimization problem. The comparison is undertaken for a case of simply supported plate subjected to biaxial loading conditions. Furthermore, the optimization objective is to determine the optimal stacking sequence design of a laminate that maximizes the critical buckling load factor (λcb). The chosen meta-heuristics have been implemented using MATLAB with the same convergence criteria and the same maximum number of iterations to ensure a fair comparison. The implemented assessment criterion has performance measures of average CPU time, solution price, reliability, and normalized price. The results have demonstrated the outperformance of the Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (ACOA) over other algorithms, which confirms the findings of previous studies. Moreover, the Tabu search algorithm (TS) and the Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (DPSO) performed poorly due to their limited exploration capability. Additionally, the Genetic Algorithm (GA) and the Simulated Annealing algorithm (SA) exhibited a high level of reliability but showed an expensive solution cost. This study presents an adequate comparison approach of meta-heuristics, where it extends the comparison scope to cover the performance analysis of meta-heuristics more than that previously done in the domain of stacking sequence design optimization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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