Fitness landscape analysis of the simple assembly line balancing problem type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the simple assembly line balancing problem type 1 (SALBP1) has been proven to be NP-hard, heuristic and metaheuristic approaches are widely used for solving middle to large instances. Nevertheless, the characteristics (fitness landscape) of the problem’s search space have not been studied so far and no rigorous justification for implementing various metaheuristic methods has been presented. Aiming to fill this gap in the literature, this study presents the first comprehensive and in-depth Fitness Landscape Analysis (FLA) study for SALBP1. The FLA was performed by generating a population of 1000 random solutions and improving them to local optimal solution, and then measuring various statistical indices such as average distance, gap, entropy, amplitude, length of the walk, autocorrelation, and fitness-distance among all solutions, to understand the complexity, structure, and topology of the solution space. We solved 83 benchmark problems with various cycle times taken from Scholl’s dataset which required 83000 local searches from initial to optimal solutions. The analysis showed that locally optimal assembly line balances in SALBP1 are distributed nearly uniformly in the landscape of the problem, and the small average difference between the amplitudes of the initial and optimal solutions implies that the landscape was almost plain. In addition, the large average gap between local and global solutions showed that global optimum solutions in SALBP1 are difficult to find, but the problem can be effectively solved using a single-solution-based metaheuristic to near-optimality. In addition to the FLA, a new mathematical formulation for the entropy (diversity) of solutions in the search space for SALBP1 is also presented in this paper.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".