Comparison of Evolutionary Algorithms: A Case Study on the Multi-Objective Carbon-Aware Mine Planning*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NP-hard precedence-constrained production scheduling problem (PCPSP) for mine planning chooses the ordered removal of materials from the mine pit and the next processing steps based on resource, geological, and geometrical constraints. Traditionally, it prioritizes the net present value (NPV) of profits across the lifespan of the mine. Yet, the growing shift in environmental concerns also requires shifts to more carbon-aware practices. In this paper, we use the enhanced multi-objective version of the generic PCPSP formulation by adding the NPV of carbon costs as another objective. We then compare how the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Pareto Envelope-based Selection Algorithm II (PESA-II) solve several real-world inspired datasets, after experimenting with the selection pressure parameter of PESA-II. The outcome reveals that PESA-II runs faster for 75% of the datasets and gives sets of solutions that are more distributed. Meanwhile, NSGA-II consistently produces non-dominated solutions even when the apportionment of a decision variable is varied. Moreover, we assess how the uncertainty of ore tonnage at the mine site modifies the Pareto front via sensitivity analysis. We show that deviations above 15% induce a larger gap from the original.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".