A self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm with robust decision-making for school layout problem


Abstract

As urban populations expand and student distributions become increasingly uncertain, the optimization of school layout problems (SLP) faces growing challenges in solution robustness. However, robust decision-making has received limited attention in the SLP literature. This paper proposes a self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm with robust decision-making (SaDE-RD) to address SLP. A robustness evaluation model is first established using two budgeted uncertainty sets that capture fluctuations in student numbers and commuting distances, and is reformulated into a tractable linear form via robust optimization theory. To enhance search efficiency, SaDE-RD introduces a self-adaptive parameter control mechanism that dynamically adjusts the scaling factor and crossover rate based on the rate of best-solution updates. Moreover, a new stagnation process strategy is employed to keep high diversity by retaining suboptimal solutions. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that SaDE-RD outperforms baseline algorithms in overall quality.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].