Studying the effect of server side-constraints on the makespan of the no-wait flow-shop problem with sequence-dependent set-up times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the problem of scheduling the no-wait flow-shop system with sequence-dependent set-up times and server side-constraints. No-wait constraints state that there should be no waiting time between consecutive operations of jobs. In addition, sequence-dependent set-up times are considered for each operation. This means that the set-up time of an operation on its respective machine is dependent on the previous operation on the same machine. Moreover, the problem consists of server side-constraints i.e. not all machines have a dedicated server to prepare them for an operation. In other words, several machines share a common server. The considered performance measure is makespan. This problem is proved to be strongly NP-Hard. To deal with the problem, two genetic algorithms are developed. In order to evaluate the performance of the developed frameworks, a large number of benchmark problems are selected and solved with different server limitation scenarios. Computational results confirm that both of the proposed algorithms are efficient and competitive. The developed algorithms are able to improve many of the best-known solutions of the test problems from the literature. Moreover, the effect of the server side-constraints on the makespan of the test problems is explained using the computational results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".