Disassembly Sequence Planning for Intelligent Manufacturing Using Social Engineering Optimizer
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
Product disassembly and recycling are important issues in green design. Disassembly sequence planning (DSP) is an important problem in the product disassembly process. The core idea is to generate the best or approximately optimal disassembly sequence to reduce disassembly costs and time. According to the characteristics of the DSP problem, a new algorithm to solve the DSP problem is proposed. Firstly, a disassembly hybrid graph is introduced, and a disassembly constraint matrix is established. Secondly, the disassembling time, replacement frequency of disassembly tool and replacement frequency of disassembly direction are taken as evaluation criteria to establish the product fitness function. Then, an improved social engineering optimizer (SEO) method is proposed. In order to enable the algorithm to solve the problem of disassembly sequence planning, a swap operator and swap sequence are introduced, and steps of the social engineering optimizer are redefined. Finally, taking a worm reducer as an example, the proposed algorithm is used to generate the disassembly sequence, and the influence of the parameters on the optimization results is analyzed. Compared with several heuristic intelligent optimization methods, the effectiveness of the proposed method is verified.
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