MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980770949 · doi:10.1109/mis.2005.9

Holonic Job Shop Scheduling Using a Multiagent System

2005· article· en· W1980770949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Intelligent Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJob shop schedulingFlow shop schedulingHeuristicsJob shopScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingTwo-level schedulingDynamic priority schedulingFair-share schedulingScheduleJob schedulerMulti-agent systemRate-monotonic schedulingIndustrial engineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationEngineeringOperating systemCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing job shop scheduling is a notoriously difficult problem that lends itself to various approaches - from optimal algorithms to suboptimal heuristics. We combined popular heuristic job shop-scheduling approaches with emerging AI techniques to create a dynamic and responsive scheduler. We fashioned our job shop scheduler's architecture around recent holonic manufacturing systems architectures and implemented our system using multiagent systems. Our scheduling approach is based on evolutionary algorithms but differs from common approaches by evolving the scheduler rather than the schedule. A holonic, multiagent systems approach to manufacturing job shop scheduling evolves the schedule creation rules rather than the schedule itself. The authors test their approach using a benchmark agent-based scheduling problem and compare performance results with other heuristic-scheduling approaches.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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