A comparative study of heuristic algorithms to solve maintenance scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of two meta‐heuristics in solving the problem of scheduling maintenance operations and jobs processing on a single machine. Design/methodology/approach The two meta‐heuristic algorithms, tabu search and simulated annealing are hybridized using the properties of an optimal schedule identified in the existing literature to the problem. A lower bound is also suggested utilizing these properties. Finding In a numerical experimentation with large size problems, the best‐known heuristic algorithm to the problem is compared with the tabu search and simulated annealing algorithms. The study shows that the meta‐heuristic algorithms outperform the heuristic algorithm. In addition, the developed meta‐heuristics tend to be more robust against the problem‐related parameters than the existing algorithm. Research limitations/implications A future work may consider the possibility of machine failure along with the preventive maintenance. This relaxes the assumption that the machine cannot fail but it is rather maintained preventively. The multi‐criteria scheduling can also be considered as an avenue of future work. The problem can also be considered with stochastic parameters such that the processing times of the jobs and the maintenance related parameters are random and follow a known probability distribution function. Practical implications The usefulness of meta‐heuristic algorithms is demonstrated for solving a large scale NP‐hard combinatorial optimization problem. The paper also shows that the utilization of the directed search methods such as hybridization could substantially improve the performance of a meta‐heuristic. Originality/value This research highlights the impact of utilizing the directed search methods to cause hybridization in meta‐heuristic and the resulting improvement in their performance for large‐scale optimization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".