Optimizing large scale bin packing problem with hybrid harmony search algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bin packing problem (BPP) is a combinatorial optimization problem with a wide range of applications in fields such as financial budgeting, load balancing, project management, supply chain management. Harmony search algorithm (HSA) is widely used for various real-world and engineering problems due to its simplicity and efficient problem solving capability. Literature shows that basic HSA needs improvement in search capability as the performance of the algorithm degrades with increase in the problem complexity. This paper presents HSA with improved exploration and exploitation capability coupled with local iterative search based on random swap operator for solving BPP. The study uses the despotism based approach presented by Yadav et al. (2012) [Yadav P., Kumar R., Panda S.K., Chang, C. S. (2012). An intelligent tuned harmony search algorithm for optimisation. Information Sciences, 196, 47-72.] to divide Harmony memory (HM) into two categories which helps to maintain balance between exploration and exploitation. Secondly, local iterative search explores multiple neighborhoods by exponentially swapping components of solution vectors. A problem specific HM representation, HM re-initialization strategy and two adaptive PAR strategies are tested. The performance of proposed HSA is evaluated on 180 benchmark instances which consists of 100, 200 and 500 objects. Evaluation metrics such as best, mean, success rate, acceleration rate and improvement measures are used to compare HSA variations. The performance of the HSA with iterative local search outperforms other two variations of HSA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".