MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044612972 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.072

Robust Metaheuristics for Scheduling Cellular Flowshop with Family Sequence-Dependent Setup Times

2014· article· en· W2044612972 on OpenAlexaff
Al-Mehdi M. Ibrahem, Tarek Y. ElMekkawy, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaheuristicParticle swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationFlow shop schedulingJob shop schedulingComputer scienceMinificationScheduling (production processes)Robustness (evolution)Profitability indexAlgorithmMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In manufacturing systems, minimization of the total flow time has a great impact on the production time, the productivity and the profitability of a firm. This paper considers a cellular flowshop scheduling problem with family sequence setup time to minimize the total flow time. Two metaheuristic algorithms based on Genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) are proposed to solve the proposed problem. As it is customarily accepted, the performance of the proposed algorithms is evaluated using Design of Experiments (DOE) to study the robustness of the proposed metaheuristics based on the Relative Percentage Deviation (RPD) from the lower bounds. The results of the DOE evaluation of the proposed algorithms show that PSO-based metaheuristic is better than GA for solving scheduling problems in cellular flow shop, which aims to minimize the total flow time.

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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia CIRPSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207