MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972617451 · doi:10.1080/07408170601181674

The no-wait two-machine flow shop scheduling problem with convex resource-dependent processing times

2007· article· en· W1972617451 on OpenAlexaff
Dvir Shabtay, Moshe Kaspi, George Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueIIE Transactions · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow shop schedulingRegular polygonScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationJob shop schedulingOperations researchMathematicsScheduleGeometryOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the classical no-wait two-machine flow shop scheduling problem to the case where job-processing times are controllable through the allocation of a common, limited and nonrenewable resource. Our objective is to simultaneously determine the sequence of the jobs and the resource allocation for each job on both machines in order to minimize the makespan. By using the equivalent load method to obtain the optimal resource allocation on a series-parallel graph, we reduce the problem to a sequencing one and show that it is equivalent to a new special case of the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). We prove that although the reduced problem forms a subclass of the TSP on permuted Monge matrices, it is still strongly NP-hard. We provide an approximation result and present three special cases which are polynomially solvable. We have also tested two different subtour-patching heuristics in large-scale computational experiments on randomly generated instances of the problem. Both heuristics produced close-to-optimal solutions in most cases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIE TransactionsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207