Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multi-objective construction scheduling studies often rely on one metaheuristic and do not explain why a schedule is selected. This study develops an auditable decision-support pipeline for multi-mode infrastructure scheduling in which trapezoidal fuzzy durations are defuzzified before a deterministic search. Five evolutionary solvers (NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D, RVEA and UNSGA-III) run under identical settings, and their outputs are pooled into one de-duplicated non-dominated front that attributes every schedule to its solver. A CRITIC-MEREC weighted consensus of TOPSIS, EDAS and WASPAS selects a schedule, and a Shapley-value surrogate attributes the selection to activity-mode commitments. On a 20-activity network, duration fell by 26.12%, cost by 12.04% and resource fluctuation by 35.86%, but emissions by only 1.96%, because faster modes raised working emissions almost as much as they reduced idle emissions. MOEA/D collapsed to one distinct schedule, and three activities carried most of the attribution. Across 30 replications the pooled front exceeded every solver in hypervolume, although five NSGA-II restarts at equal budget scored 0.86% higher. On PSPLIB networks of 30 to 120 activities, emissions fell by 11.87% to 54.78%. The pipeline shows which solver suits a problem class, which commitments need managerial attention and whether scheduling alone can reduce carbon meaningfully.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: