Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

A matheuristic for solving the single row facility layout problem

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A moving-window MIP sets 17 new best-known layouts for the single-row facility layout problem.

desk verdict A solid, first-of-its-kind matheuristic for SRFLP with credible improved bounds, but the printed improvement constraint is wrong and the lack of code/runtime controls tempers the state-of-the-art claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09793 v1 pith:Q3RSL25N submitted 2025-06-11 math.OC

Thomas Pammer , Markus Sinnl This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C1190C2790C59
keywords singlerowfacilitylayoutproblemmatheuristicwindowapproachbetweenness-basedMIPmulti-startsimulatedannealinglocalsearchpermutationoptimizationlarge-scalebenchmarkinstances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the single row facility layout problem (SRFLP) — arranging facilities on a line to minimize weighted center-to-center distances — can be solved to higher quality by a matheuristic that repeatedly solves small pieces of a layout exactly. Its window approach keeps every facility outside a moving interval fixed, then uses a betweenness-based mixed-integer program to reorder the facilities inside the interval optimally, with dummy facilities representing the fixed left and right parts. Embedded in multi-start simulated annealing with two local searches, this method is claimed to be the first matheuristic designed for the SRFLP. On 70 standard large benchmark instances, it improves the best-known solution value for 17 instances and matches it for the other 53, with the gains concentrated on instances with at least 500 facilities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the betweenness-based MIP formulation, whose binary variables indicate whether one facility lies between two others, together with the window adaptation that makes it tractable for large instances. On any window the algorithm fixes all facilities outside the chosen interval, introduces two zero-length dummy facilities for the aggregated left and right parts, aggregates external weights into the MIP weight matrix, and precomputes the fixed part of the objective so the solver optimizes only the window's internal permutation. The machinery also includes an improvement constraint that makes the MIP return only strictly better permutations, plus an orientation check because the endpoint pair produced by the ordering routine can be read in either direction.

What would settle it

Run the previous best-known algorithm on the same machine with the same $n^{1}$.7-second time limit for every one of the 70 benchmark instances; if the window matheuristic no longer improves or matches every best-known value under equal budgets, the claimed superiority is an artifact of the comparison rather than the window mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a moving-window exact optimization defines a new neighborhood for the SRFLP: fix the order outside an interval, precompute all distances that cannot change, aggregate the weights of external facilities into two zero-length dummy facilities, and solve the betweenness-based MIP for the window's contents, accepting a new order only if it strictly lowers the objective. The objective decomposes into fixed, partially dependent, and fully variable terms, and Proposition 1 formalizes this decomposition. In the full algorithm the window operator runs with window size 13 inside the multi-start simulated annealing phase and sizes 17 and 19 in a refinement phase, after insertion and swap local searches. On the three standard large benchmark sets, the paper reports new best-known upper bounds on 17 of 70 instances and matches the previous best-known value on the remaining 53, and the ablation without the window component shows that the improvements come from the window on the larger instances.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison with state of the art assumes the published best-known values were produced under computational budgets comparable to this paper's $n^{1}$.7-second time limit, since the paper reports only objective values and not competitor runtimes or hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the 70 benchmark instances, the paper's method reaches or beats every previous best-known solution, so at least 17 of the large-instance bounds in the literature can be lowered.
  • For instances with at least 500 facilities, the window component is the deciding factor: the no-window version is strictly improved upon in most of these cases, so this neighborhood is the most promising target for future large-scale SRFLP heuristics.
  • The window approach acts as a self-contained improvement operator on any feasible permutation, so it can be embedded in other metaheuristic frameworks, not only multi-start simulated annealing.
  • The method is consistent across independent runs: the largest relative standard deviation reported is below 0.0065 percent, and several instances return the same best value in all 15 runs.
  • Matching every previous best-known value and improving 17 of them suggests that the previous bounds were not optimal and that exact optimization can still contribute at scales where pure metaheuristics dominate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not report the time budgets of the baseline runs; if those budgets were smaller than the n^1.7-second limit used here, part of the 17 improvements could be a time artifact. An equal-budget rerun of the previous best-known algorithm on identical hardware would settle this.
  • The window operator only needs a betweenness-based MIP and a feasible permutation, so it should transfer to permutation problems such as minimum linear arrangement; a natural test is whether window sizes 13 to 19 remain effective there.
  • The strict-improvement constraint rejects equal-cost reorderings; allowing ties with a tie-breaker might escape plateaus where an equal layout could unlock later improvements.
  • The ablation shows that windows pay off mainly at 400 or more facilities, so an instance-size-aware schedule that skips windows on smaller instances could save MIP time with little quality loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a matheuristic for the single row facility layout problem (SRFLP), combining a multi-start simulated annealing phase with two local search procedures and a new "window approach" that optimally reorders a contiguous block of facilities via a betweenness-based MIP while keeping the remaining layout fixed. The authors report that the method matches or improves the best-known solution values on all 70 benchmark instances from the Anjos-large, Sko-large, and Palubeckis-large sets (improving 17 of them), and they include an ablation study showing that the window component is beneficial under identical time limits. The paper also provides a formal decomposition of the objective function in Proposition 1 and an appendix proof.

Significance. If the results are correct, the window approach is a novel and effective intensification mechanism for large-scale SRFLP instances, and the paper would be the first matheuristic specifically designed for this problem. The algebraic decomposition in Proposition 1 is sound, the ablation in Section 5.3 cleanly isolates the value of the window component under identical time limits, and the benchmark coverage is broad. However, the external comparison in Section 5.4 is not time-controlled, and the improvement constraint in Section 4.2 is mis-specified, so the central claim of outperforming state-of-the-art metaheuristics requires clarification before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) does not express the objective value it claims to bound. By Proposition 1 and Eq. (21), the objective of a candidate window permutation π' is fixed(sw,ew,π) plus three permutation-dependent sums: the before-inside terms, the inside-inside terms (including the constant (ℓ_i+ℓ_j)/2), and the inside-after terms. The left-hand side of Eq. (14) contains only the inside-inside betweenness sum, omitting the two boundary-dependent sums and the inside-inside constant. Therefore the statement that the left-hand side "represents the objective value of the solution" is false, and the constraint as printed does not by itself guarantee "that only improvements are accepted." In Algorithm 4, line 15 recomputes F(π') and would reject a non-improving permutation, so a worse solution may not be accepted in the implementation; however, the MIP solved inside MIP_BB is not precisely specified. If the MIP minimizes the left-hand side of Eq. (14), it optimizes a wrong objective; if it minimizes the correct objective, the printed improvement constraint should be rewritten in terms of the full window objective. Please correct Eq. (14) and state the exact objective and constraints of the MIP used in Algorithm 4.
  2. [§5.1 and §5.4] The headline comparison with KMPG and GRASP-F is not a controlled comparison. The paper assigns its own method a time limit of n^1.7 seconds (about 35 hours per run at n=1000) but does not report the runtimes or hardware used by Tang et al. (2022) or Cravo and Amaral (2019), and Section 5.1 explicitly states that runtime is not included in the comparison. Under these conditions, the 17 improved bounds in Tables 7–9 may reflect a larger computational budget rather than an algorithmic advantage. The internal ablation in Section 5.3, which compares the window and no-window variants under identical time limits, is convincing evidence for the value of the window mechanism, but the broader claim of "outperforming current state-of-the-art metaheuristics" needs either a time-controlled re-run of the competitors on the same hardware, or a report of the competitor runtimes together with a justification that the n^1.7-second budget is comparable. Please provide this information or soften the claim accordingly.
  3. [§3.2 and Algorithm 4] The correctness of the MIP subproblem is asserted but not demonstrated in enough detail. The text states that after introducing the two dummy facilities and aggregating external weights, "we can use the general objective function for the MIP after this modification, see equation (21)"; however Eq. (21) is a decomposition of the original objective, not a derivation showing that the betweenness model on the window plus dummy facilities reproduces the three permutation-dependent sums in Eq. (10). Since the entire method relies on solving these window subproblems exactly, the paper should give the precise MIP formulation solved in MIP_BB—variables, objective, constraints, and how f_wd is combined with the MIP objective—and a short argument why the dummy-facility weight aggregation yields the correct window subproblem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (13)] The index i is reused in the outer sum over wf and in the inner sum over the window, and the formula appears to multiply each facility length by the sum of all minimum weights rather than by its own minimum weight; please correct the indexing and reconcile the formula with the accompanying text about "the combined length of all facilities inside the window."
  2. [Appendix B.2, Algorithm 6] The text mentions that a check for the direction of the permutation is necessary, but this check is not shown in the pseudocode of create_order; please specify how the algorithm determines whether s is the left or right endpoint and how the final order is oriented correctly.
  3. [Appendix B.1] There are typographical errors, including "Implemention" in the section title and "procudure" in the text; these should be corrected before publication.
  4. [Tables 4–6] Several table entries lack a separator between the instance name and the objective value (e.g., "400 03920860291.00" and "430286334521.50"), which makes the tables difficult to read; please reformat the instance labels consistently.
  5. [§5.1] The hardware description (Intel Xeon X5570, 6GB memory) is useful, but the paper should also report the number of replicates used for the no-window variant in Section 5.3 and the total time consumed by the window-MIP component, since the window step is the main computational bottleneck.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the window approach is validated against external best-known values and an internal ablation; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing pointer to a master thesis.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external evidence. Proposition 1 (Eqs. 10-11, 21, with proof in Appendix A) algebraically separates the SRFLP objective into a fixed term and permutation-dependent terms; the window MIP optimizes only the dependent part using the betweenness formulation of Amaral (2009), an external source. The headline result in Section 5.4 compares computed objective values with published KMPG and GRASP-F bounds, not with any quantity fitted by the authors. Section 5.3 provides an internal ablation under identical n^1.7 time limits (window vs no window), which independently supports the effectiveness of the window mechanism. The only self-referential element is a citation to the first author's master thesis (Pammer 2025) for implementation details; this is a reproducibility pointer, not a load-bearing premise or a way of importing a result. The manuscript itself flags at Section 5.1 that runtimes and hardware differ and are excluded from the comparison; that is an external-validity caveat, not a circular step. The disputed improvement constraint in Eq. (14) omits boundary-dependent objective terms, which is a correctness concern about whether the acceptance test matches the full objective, but it does not make the paper's derivation equivalent to its inputs. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The matheuristic's correctness rests on the prior betweenness formulation, the benchmark baselines, the solver's exactness on small windows, and an unverifiable (no code shipped) implementation. No physical entities or new conserved quantities are introduced; the dummy facilities are bookkeeping devices.

free parameters (7)
  • cooling factor alpha = 0.98
    Tuned one-at-a-time on a separate training set of 20 Anjos instances of sizes 150 and 450 (Section 5.2, Table 1); affects the SA temperature schedule and hence solution quality.
  • inner runs multiplier z_hat = 100
    Number of moves per temperature level times n, tuned on the same training set (Section 5.2, Table 2).
  • swap move probability p = 0.35
    Tuned on the training set (Section 5.2, Table 3); balances swap versus insertion moves in the SA phase.
  • window size vector wsv = (13) in MSA phase; (17, 19) in refinement phase
    Chosen by hand as a tradeoff between MIP solve time and improvement potential; not tuned systematically (Section 4.1).
  • go-back flag gb = false in MSA, true in refinement
    Hand-chosen to trade runtime against intensification depth (Algorithm 1, Section 4.1).
  • runtime limit = n^1.7 seconds per run
    Ad hoc scaling used for the experiments; the headline comparison with KMPG and GRASP-F is sensitive to this choice because competitor runtimes are not reported (Section 5.1).
  • gamma (SA move-gain method switch) = 0.35
    Inherited from Palubeckis (2017), not tuned here; controls which move-gain computation method is used (Appendix B.1).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The betweenness-based MIP formulation of Amaral (2009) correctly and completely models SRFLP, including the constraint set (4)-(9).
    Adopted as a black-box exact subproblem solver in Section 3.1; the paper relies on its correctness for the window subproblems but does not prove it.
  • domain assumption The best-known solution values reported by Tang et al. (2022) and Cravo and Amaral (2019) are accurate and are currently the strongest published results on the three benchmark sets.
    Sections 5.4 use these values as the baseline for 'improves/matches best-known'; if the literature has since moved, the headline numbers would be dated.
  • domain assumption Gurobi 12.0.0 returns proven optimal solutions for the betweenness MIP on windows of 13 to 19 facilities within the per-window time budget.
    The window approach's value rests on solving each window to optimality (Section 3.2); solver performance on these small MIPs is assumed, not demonstrated with proofs or logs.
  • domain assumption The objective function evaluation, the move-gain formulas of Palubeckis (2017), and the calc_out_w_dist and create_order routines correctly implement the decomposition of Proposition 1.
    Sections 4 and B; the paper does not ship code, so the correctness of the implementation that produced the tables is assumed from the pseudocode and the master's thesis.
invented entities (1)
  • Two dummy facilities aggregating all facilities before and after the window
    purpose: Allow the betweenness-based MIP to optimize the internal window order while keeping the outside structure fixed (Section 3.2).
    Pure computational bookkeeping: the dummies have zero length, fixed relative positions, and aggregated weights. They carry no physics, no falsifiable prediction, and no content beyond the window instance itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A matheuristic for solving the single row facility layout problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3RSL25N

@misc{pith2026250609793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A matheuristic for solving the single row facility layout problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3RSL25N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09793}
}
read the original abstract

The single row facility layout problem (SRFLP) is a well-studied NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem with applications in manufacturing and logistics systems. In the SRFLP, a set of facilities with lengths is given, as well as weights between each pair of facilities. The facilities must be arranged on a line, such that the sum of the weighted center-to-center distances is minimized. In this work, we introduce a novel matheuristic approach that integrates exact optimization into a metaheuristic framework based on simulated annealing to effectively solve large-scale SRFLP instances. Specifically, we propose the window approach matheuristic, which solves subsegments of the layout to optimality using mixed-integer programming while preserving the ordering of facilities outside the window. To the best of our knowledge, this constitutes the first matheuristic approach specifically designed for the SRFLP. We evaluate the performance of our method on the widely-used benchmark instance sets from literature. The computational results demonstrate that our matheuristic improves the best-known solution values for 17 of 70 instances, and matches the best-known solution values for the remaining 53 instances, outperforming current state-of-the-art metaheuristics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Weights matrix and visual representation of total weighted distance computations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Possible position of fourth facility h This shows that the facility can not be positioned between just one pair of the three other facili￾ties. The last constraint 9 ensures that the betweenness decision variables are binary. In the proposed matheuristic, this formulation is extended via the window approach to optimally solve subsegments of the SRFLP, while preserving the global structure of the solution. Note that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Types of distances in the computation of the objective function given a window defined by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , author Negreiros-Gomes, F.J

    author Gomes de Alvarenga, A. , author Negreiros-Gomes, F.J. , author Mestria, M. , year 2000 . title Metaheuristic methods for a class of the facility layout problem . journal Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing volume 11 , pages 421--430

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    , year 2009

    author Amaral, A.R. , year 2009 . title A new lower bound for the single row facility layout problem . journal Discrete Applied Mathematics volume 157 , pages 183--190

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    , author Letchford, A.N

    author Amaral, A.R. , author Letchford, A.N. , year 2013 . title A polyhedral approach to the single row facility layout problem . journal Mathematical Programming volume 141 , pages 453--477

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    , author Mansini, R

    author Angelelli, E. , author Mansini, R. , author Speranza, M.G. , year 2010 . title Kernel search: A general heuristic for the multi-dimensional knapsack problem . journal Computers & Operations Research volume 37 , pages 2017--2026

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    , author Kennings, A

    author Anjos, M.F. , author Kennings, A. , author Vannelli, A. , year 2005 . title A semidefinite optimization approach for the single-row layout problem with unequal dimensions . journal Discrete Optimization volume 2 , pages 113--122

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    , author Vannelli, A

    author Anjos, M.F. , author Vannelli, A. , year 2006 . title On the computational performance of a semidefinite programming approach to single row layout problems , in: booktitle Operations Research Proceedings 2005: Selected Papers of the Annual International Conference of the German Operations Research Society (GOR), Bremen, September 7--9, 2005 , organ...

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    , author Vannelli, A

    author Anjos, M.F. , author Vannelli, A. , year 2008 . title Computing globally optimal solutions for single-row layout problems using semidefinite programming and cutting planes . journal INFORMS Journal on Computing volume 20 , pages 611--617

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    , author Oswald, M

    author Caprara, A. , author Oswald, M. , author Reinelt, G. , author Schwarz, R. , author Traversi, E. , year 2011 . title Optimal linear arrangements using betweenness variables . journal Mathematical Programming Computation volume 3 , pages 261--280

    work page 2011

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    , author Amaral, A.R

    author Cravo, G.L. , author Amaral, A.R. , year 2019 . title A GRASP algorithm for solving large-scale single row facility layout problems . journal Computers & Operations Research volume 106 , pages 49--61

    2019

  2. [10]

    , author Amaral, A.R

    author Datta, D. , author Amaral, A.R. , author Figueira, J.R. , year 2011 . title Single row facility layout problem using a permutation-based genetic algorithm . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 213 , pages 388--394

    2011

  3. [11]

    , author Gourgand, M

    author Djellab, H. , author Gourgand, M. , year 2001 . title A new heuristic procedure for the single-row facility layout problem . journal International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing volume 14 , pages 270--280

    2001

  4. [12]

    , author Brezocnik, M

    author Ficko, M. , author Brezocnik, M. , author Balic, J. , year 2004 . title Designing the layout of single-and multiple-rows flexible manufacturing system by genetic algorithms . journal Journal of Materials Processing Technology volume 157 , pages 150--158

    2004

  5. [13]

    , author Gruber, G

    author Fischer, I. , author Gruber, G. , author Rendl, F. , author Sotirov, R. , year 2006 . title Computational experience with a bundle approach for semidefinite cutting plane relaxations of max-cut and equipartition . journal Mathematical Programming volume 105 , pages 451--469

    2006

  6. [14]

    , author Lodi, A

    author Fischetti, M. , author Lodi, A. , year 2003 . title Local branching . journal Mathematical Programming volume 98 , pages 23--47

    2003

  7. [15]

    , author Lin, G

    author Guan, J. , author Lin, G. , year 2016 . title Hybridizing variable neighborhood search with ant colony optimization for solving the single row facility layout problem . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 248 , pages 899--909

    2016

  8. [16]

    , author Alfa, A.S

    author Heragu, S.S. , author Alfa, A.S. , year 1992 . title Experimental analysis of simulated annealing based algorithms for the layout problem . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 57 , pages 190--202

    1992

  9. [17]

    , author Kusiak, A

    author Heragu, S.S. , author Kusiak, A. , year 1988 . title Machine layout problem in flexible manufacturing systems . journal Operations Research volume 36 , pages 258--268

    1988

  10. [18]

    , author Ghosh, D

    author Kothari, R. , author Ghosh, D. , year 2013 . title Tabu search for the single row facility layout problem using exhaustive 2-opt and insertion neighborhoods . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 224 , pages 93--100

    2013

  11. [19]

    , author Ghosh, D

    author Kothari, R. , author Ghosh, D. , year 2014 . title A scatter search algorithm for the single row facility layout problem . journal Journal of Heuristics volume 20 , pages 125--142

    2014

  12. [20]

    , author Hadjinicola, G.C

    author Kumar, K.R. , author Hadjinicola, G.C. , author Lin, T.l. , year 1995 . title A heuristic procedure for the single-row facility layout problem . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 87 , pages 65--73

    1995

  13. [21]

    , author Wong, J

    author Love, R. , author Wong, J. , year 1976 . title On solving a one-dimensional space allocation problem with integer programming . journal Information Systems and Operational Research volume 14 , pages 139--143

    1976

  14. [22]

    , year 2023

    author Mallach, S. , year 2023 . title Binary programs for asymmetric betweenness problems and relations to the quadratic linear ordering problem . journal EURO Journal on Computational Optimization volume 11 , pages 100071

    2023

  15. [23]

    , author St \"u tzle, T

    author Maniezzo, V. , author St \"u tzle, T. , author Vo , S. , year 2021 . title Matheuristics . publisher Springer

    2021

  16. [24]

    , author Reinelt, G

    author Mart \' , R. , author Reinelt, G. , year 2011 . title The linear ordering problem: exact and heuristic methods in combinatorial optimization . volume volume 175 . publisher Springer Science & Business Media

    2011

  17. [25]

    , year 2015

    author Palubeckis, G. , year 2015 . title Fast local search for single row facility layout . journal European Journal of Operational Research volume 246 , pages 800--814

    2015

  18. [26]

    , year 2017

    author Palubeckis, G. , year 2017 . title Single row facility layout using multi-start simulated annealing . journal Computers & Industrial Engineering volume 103 , pages 1--16

    2017

  19. [27]

    , year 2025

    author Pammer, T. , year 2025 . title A matheuristic for solving the single row facility layout problem . type Master's thesis . Johannes Kepler University Linz

    2025

  20. [28]

    , author Queyranne, M

    author Picard, J.C. , author Queyranne, M. , year 1981 . title On the one-dimensional space allocation problem . journal Operations Research volume 29 , pages 371--391

    1981

  21. [29]

    , author S \'a nchez-Flores, A

    author Romero, D. , author S \'a nchez-Flores, A. , year 1990 . title Methods for the one-dimensional space allocation problem . journal Computers & Operations Research volume 17 , pages 465--473

    1990

  22. [30]

    , author Gallego, M

    author Rubio-S \'a nchez, M. , author Gallego, M. , author Gort \'a zar, F. , author Duarte, A. , year 2016 . title Grasp with path relinking for the single row facility layout problem . journal Knowledge-Based Systems volume 106 , pages 1--13

    2016

  23. [31]

    , author Taabayan, P

    author Samarghandi, H. , author Taabayan, P. , author Jahantigh, F.F. , year 2010 . title A particle swarm optimization for the single row facility layout problem . journal Computers & Industrial Engineering volume 58 , pages 529--534

    2010

  24. [32]

    , author Asokan, P

    author Satheesh Kumar, R. , author Asokan, P. , author Kumanan, S. , author Varma, B. , year 2008 . title Scatter search algorithm for single row layout problem in fms . journal Advances in Production Engineering & Management volume 3 , pages 193--204

    2008

  25. [33]

    , year 2021

    author Schwiddessen, J. , year 2021 . title A semidefinite approach for the single row facility layout problem , in: booktitle International Conference on Operations Research , organization Springer . pp. pages 45--51

    2021

  26. [34]

    , year 1969

    author Simmons, D.M. , year 1969 . title One-dimensional space allocation: an ordering algorithm . journal Operations Research volume 17 , pages 812--826

    1969

  27. [35]

    , author Vo , S

    author Sniedovich, M. , author Vo , S. , year 2006 . title The corridor method: a dynamic programming inspired metaheuristic . journal Control and Cybernetics volume 35 , pages 551--578

    2006

  28. [36]

    , author Vrat, P

    author Solimanpur, M. , author Vrat, P. , author Shankar, R. , year 2005 . title An ant algorithm for the single row layout problem in flexible manufacturing systems . journal Computers & Operations Research volume 32 , pages 583--598

    2005

  29. [37]

    , author Li, Z

    author Tang, L. , author Li, Z. , author Hao, J.K. , year 2022 . title Solving the single-row facility layout problem by k-medoids memetic permutation group . journal IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation volume 27 , pages 251--265

    2022

  30. [38]

    , author Ponnambalam, S

    author Teo, Y.T. , author Ponnambalam, S. , year 2008 . title A hybrid ACO/PSO heuristic to solve single row layout problem , in: booktitle 2008 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering , organization IEEE . pp. pages 597--602

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.