MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984200231 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.827806

Mathematical modelling and a meta-heuristic for flexible job shop scheduling

2013· article· en· W1984200231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vahid Roshanaei, Ahmed Azab, H.A. ElMaraghy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsJob shop schedulingBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationInteger programmingComputer scienceSimulated annealingHeuristicScheduling (production processes)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study develops new solution methodologies for the flexible job shop scheduling problem (F-JSSP). As a first step towards dealing with this complex problem, mathematical modellings have been used; two novel effective position- and sequence-based mixed integer linear programming (MILP) models have been developed to fully characterise operations of the shop floor. The developed MILP models are capable of solving both partially and totally F-JSSPs. Size complexities, solution effectiveness and computational efficiencies of the developed MILPs are numerically explored and comprehensively compared vis-à-vis the makespan optimisation criterion. The acquired results demonstrate that the proposed MILPs, by virtue of its structural efficiencies, outperform the state-of-the-art MILPs in literature. The F-JSSP is strongly NP-hard; hence, it renders even the developed enhanced MILPs inefficient in generating schedules with the desired quality for industrial scale problems. Thus, a meta-heuristic that is a hybrid of Artificial Immune and Simulated Annealing (AISA) Algorithms has been proposed and developed for larger instances of the F-JSSP. Optimality gap is measured through comparison of AISA’s suboptimal solutions with its MILP exact optimal counterparts obtained for small- to medium-size benchmarks of F-JSSP. The AISA’s results were examined further by comparing them with seven of the best-performing meta-heuristics applied to the same benchmark. The performed comparative analysis demonstrated the superiority of the developed AISA algorithm. An industrial problem in a mould- and die-making shop was used for verification.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations110
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Production ResearchSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207