Static multi-robot task allocation in obstacle-rich environments becomes more challenging as the problem size increases because trivial and contested assignments are typically addressed during the same planning process. This paper presents the computational depot-frontier growth partitioning (DFGP) framework for organising assignment decisions in static depot-aware multi-robot task allocation. In a centralised, full-information setting, DFGP expands depot-centred frontiers so that tasks exposed to a single frontier are absorbed in parallel, whereas only boundary tasks shared by multiple frontiers are resolved through entropy-based priority. Residual budget constraints limit frontier expansion, and the planning process is completed using dead-end recovery and bottleneck-oriented refinement. A benchmark evaluation across 18 scenarios encompassing six maps and robot counts of 5, 10, and 20 demonstrates that DFGP achieved an average lower-bound gap of 8.5%, compared with 20.4% for the strongest LKH-Minmax baseline, and attained the theoretical lower bound in six scenarios. In addition, DFGP also exhibits fixed-seed reproducibility with σ = 0, an allocation runtime of 1.3–2.5 s, and consistent lower-bound proximity across four maps in the 20-robot setting. Active construction indicators reveal that most assignments are absorbed uncontested, with frontier-based contested resolution and rescue confined to boundary cases; this resolution is most decisive in the intermediate-load regime, where task–robot competition is highest, whereas the headline gap reflects the combined effect of all framework stages. These results position DFGP as a benchmarked computational framework for obstacle-aware multi-robot planning that combines a low lower-bound gap with deterministic and practical execution.
J. Seo, Joonwook Lee· Journal of Computational Des...· 0 citations
Building construction sites are dynamic systems in which safety decisions interact with time, cost, productivity, equipment movement, and spatial constraints. This systematic review examines how building-construction-stage safety is represented in optimization-based and optimization-linked decision studies published between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2026. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-informed workflow used searches of the Web of Science Core Collection and IEEE Xplore, supplemented by Google Scholar and backward-citation checks. Seventy-nine studies met the core inclusion criterion, which required safety to appear as a quantified objective, constraint, evaluation metric, decision criterion, or prediction target. Studies were classified by problem type, safety role, method family, digital integration, and validation evidence. The synthesis identifies a problem-type-dependent formulation pattern: site-layout and scheduling studies mainly optimize safety or exposure objectives; crane/lifting studies distribute safety across constraints, objectives, and decision criteria; risk-decision studies use criteria or metrics; and prediction studies tune models whose targets are safety or risk outcomes. The core corpus is concentrated in site-layout and crane/lifting studies, whereas temporary works, monitoring-to-intervention, and construction-stage emergency response are less often formulated as optimization problems. Strict real-site/field evidence was identified in 7 of 79 studies, with an upper sensitivity bound of 11. Future research should prioritize transparent metrics, benchmarks, field validation, and closed-loop workflows.
J. Seo, JinHwan Kim, Gyeonggyu Park et al.· Buildings· 0 citations