An Efficient Optimization Algorithm for Modular Product Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modularity concepts play an important role in the process of developing new complex products. Modularization involves dividing a product into a set of modules - each of which consisting of a set of components - that are interdependent in the same cluster and independent between clusters. During this process, a product can be represented using a Design Structure Matrix (DSM). A DSM acts as a tool for system analysis to provide clear visualization of product elements. In addition, DSM, shows the interactions between these product elements. This paper aims to propose an efficient optimization algorithm that dynamically divides a DSM into an optimal number and size of clusters in a way that minimizes total coordination cost; the interactions inside clusters (modules) and interactions between clusters. Given problem complexity, five metaheuristic optimization algorithms are proposed and tested to solve it; these algorithms are used to determine: (1) the optimal clusters’ number within a DSM, and (2) the optimal components assignment clusters to minimize the total coordination cost. The five used metaheuristics are: Cuckoo Search, Modified Cuckoo Search, Particle Swarm Optimization, Simulated Annealing, and Gravitational Search Algorithm. Eighty problems with different properties are generated and used to examine the proposed algorithms for effectiveness and efficiency. Extensive comparisons are conducted and analyzed. Cuckoo Search is outperforming the other four algorithms.
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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".