Concurrent product layout design optimization and dependency management using a modified NSGA-III approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of mechatronic systems has increased with the significant advancements of technology in their components which makes their design more challenging. This is due to the need for incorporating expertise from different domains as well as the increased number and complexity of components integrated into the product. To alleviate the burden of designing such products, many industries and researchers are attracted to the concept of modularization which is to identify a subset of system components that can form a module. To achieve this, a novel product-related dependency management approach is proposed in this paper with the support of an augmented design structure matrix. This approach makes it possible to model positive and negative dependencies and to compute the combination potency between components to form modules. This approach is then integrated into a modified non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm III to concurrently optimize the design and identify the modules. The methodology is exemplified through the case study of a layout design of an automatic greenhouse. By applying the proposed methodology to the case study, it was possible to generate concepts that decreased the number of modules from 9 down to 4 while ensuring the optimization of the design performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".