Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 102 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 51 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 30 tok/s
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 110 tok/s
GPT OSS 120B 475 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 203 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A Multi-constraint and Multi-objective Allocation Model for Emergency Rescue in IoT Environment (2403.10299v1)

Published 15 Mar 2024 in cs.AI

Abstract: Emergency relief operations are essential in disaster aftermaths, necessitating effective resource allocation to minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits. In prolonged crises or extensive disasters, a systematic, multi-cycle approach is key for timely and informed decision-making. Leveraging advancements in IoT and spatio-temporal data analytics, we've developed the Multi-Objective Shuffled Gray-Wolf Frog Leaping Model (MSGW-FLM). This multi-constraint, multi-objective resource allocation model has been rigorously tested against 28 diverse challenges, showing superior performance in comparison to established models such as NSGA-II, IBEA, and MOEA/D. MSGW-FLM's effectiveness is particularly notable in complex, multi-cycle emergency rescue scenarios, which involve numerous constraints and objectives. This model represents a significant step forward in optimizing resource distribution in emergency response situations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (27)
  1. C. J. Powers, A. Devaraj, K. Ashqeen, A. Dontula, A. Joshi, J. Shenoy, and D. Murthy, “Using artificial intelligence to identify emergency messages on social media during a natural disaster: A deep learning approach,” International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 100164, 2023.
  2. S. kamal Paul and P. Bhaumik, “Disaster management through integrative ai,” in 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking.   Delhi AA India: ACM, Jan. 2022, pp. 290–293.
  3. R. K. Santhanaraj, S. Rajendran, C. A. T. Romero, and S. S. Murugaraj, “Internet of things enabled energy aware metaheuristic clustering for real time disaster management.” Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 1561–1576, 2023.
  4. P. Pandiyan, S. Saravanan, K. Usha, R. Kannadasan, M. H. Alsharif, and M.-K. Kim, “Technological advancements toward smart energy management in smart cities,” Energy Reports, vol. 10, pp. 648–677, 2023.
  5. S. M. Khan, I. Shafi, W. H. Butt, I. d. l. T. Diez, M. A. L. Flores, J. C. Galán, and I. Ashraf, “A systematic review of disaster management systems: Approaches, challenges, and future directions,” Land, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 1514, 2023.
  6. R. Aringhieri, S. Bigharaz, D. Duma, and A. Guastalla, “Fairness in ambulance routing for post disaster management,” Central European journal of operations research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 189–211, 2022.
  7. H. S. Munawar, M. Mojtahedi, A. W. Hammad, A. Kouzani, and M. P. Mahmud, “Disruptive technologies as a solution for disaster risk management: A review,” Science of the total environment, vol. 806, p. 151351, 2022.
  8. S. Huang, J. Ji, Y. Wang, W. Li, and Y. Zheng, “A machine vision-based method for crowd density estimation and evacuation simulation,” Safety science, vol. 167, p. 106285, 2023.
  9. F. Zeng, C. Pang, and H. Tang, “Sensors on the internet of things systems for urban disaster management: a systematic literature review,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 17, p. 7475, 2023.
  10. E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, “Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach,” IEEE transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257–271, 1999.
  11. J. J. Durillo and A. J. Nebro, “jmetal: A java framework for multi-objective optimization,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 760–771, 2011.
  12. X. Feng, A. Pan, Z. Ren, and Z. Fan, “Hybrid driven strategy for constrained evolutionary multi-objective optimization,” Information Sciences, vol. 585, pp. 344–365, 2022.
  13. S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Grey wolf optimizer,” Advances in engineering software, vol. 69, pp. 46–61, 2014.
  14. I. A. Zamfirache, R.-E. Precup, R.-C. Roman, and E. M. Petriu, “Policy iteration reinforcement learning-based control using a grey wolf optimizer algorithm,” Information Sciences, vol. 585, pp. 162–175, 2022.
  15. X. Liu, G. Li, H. Yang, N. Zhang, L. Wang, and P. Shao, “Agricultural uav trajectory planning by incorporating multi-mechanism improved grey wolf optimization algorithm,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 233, p. 120946, 2023.
  16. M. M. Eusuff and K. E. Lansey, “Optimization of water distribution network design using the shuffled frog leaping algorithm,” Journal of Water Resources planning and management, vol. 129, no. 3, pp. 210–225, 2003.
  17. Z. Yang, Y. Wang, and K. Yang, “The stochastic decision making framework for long-term multi-objective energy-water supply-ecology operation in parallel reservoirs system under uncertainties,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 187, p. 115907, 2022.
  18. Y. Chen, M. Wang, A. A. Heidari, B. Shi, Z. Hu, Q. Zhang, H. Chen, M. Mafarja, and H. Turabieh, “Multi-threshold image segmentation using a multi-strategy shuffled frog leaping algorithm,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 194, p. 116511, 2022.
  19. A. Babalik, A. Ozkis, S. A. Uymaz, and M. S. Kiran, “A multi-objective artificial algae algorithm,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 68, pp. 377–395, 2018.
  20. K. S. Anderson and Y. Hsu, “Genetic crossover strategy using an approximation concept,” in Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406), vol. 1.   IEEE, 1999, pp. 527–533.
  21. X.-S. Yang and S. Deb, “Cuckoo search via lévy flights,” in 2009 World congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NaBIC).   Ieee, 2009, pp. 210–214.
  22. É. Cuisinier, P. Lemaire, B. Penz, A. Ruby, and C. Bourasseau, “New rolling horizon optimization approaches to balance short-term and long-term decisions: An application to energy planning,” Energy, vol. 245, p. 122773, 2022.
  23. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002.
  24. E. Zitzler and S. Künzli, “Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search,” in International conference on parallel problem solving from nature.   Springer, 2004, pp. 832–842.
  25. Q. Zhang and H. Li, “Moea/d: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 712–731, 2007.
  26. A. Özkış and A. Babalık, “A novel metaheuristic for multi-objective optimization problems: The multi-objective vortex search algorithm,” Information Sciences, vol. 402, pp. 124–148, 2017.
  27. Y. Xiang, Y. Zhou, and H. Liu, “An elitism based multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 245, no. 1, pp. 168–193, 2015.
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Paper Prompts

Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.

List Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Explore 10 Community Prompts
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now