MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296830597 · doi:10.3390/pr10101908

Development of an Improved Water Cycle Algorithm for Solving an Energy-Efficient Disassembly-Line Balancing Problem

2022· article· en· W4296830597 on OpenAlexaff
Xuesong Zhang, Jing Yuan, Xiaowen Chen, Xingqin Zhang, Changshu Zhan, Amir M. Fathollahi‐Fard, Chao Wang, Zhiming Liu, Jie Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaheuristicMathematical optimizationComputer scienceSolverAlgorithmSensitivity (control systems)Assembly lineEnergy consumptionEfficient energy useReducerRemanufacturingEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, there is a great deal of interest in the development of practical optimization models and intelligent solution algorithms for solving disassembly-line balancing problems. Based on the importance of energy efficiency of product disassembly and the trend for green remanufacturing, this paper develops a new optimization model for the energy-efficient disassembly-line balancing problem where the goal is to minimize the energy consumption generated during the disassembly-line operations. Since the proposed model is a complex optimization problem known as NP-hard, this study develops an improved metaheuristic algorithm based on the water cycle algorithm as a recently developed successful metaheuristic inspired by the natural water cycle phenomena of diversion, rainfall, confluence, and infiltration operations. A local search operator is added to the main algorithm to improve its performance. The proposed algorithm is validated by the exact solver and compared with other state-of-the-art and recent metaheuristic algorithms. A case study in a turbine reducer with different parameters is solved to show the applicability of this paper. Finally, our results confirm the high performance of the proposed improved water cycle algorithm and the efficiency of our sensitivity analyses during some sensitivity analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207