MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091706292 · doi:10.1080/00207540903055685

Hybrid simulated annealing with memory: an evolution-based diversification approach

2009· article· en· W2091706292 on OpenAlexaff
Nader Azizi, Saeed Zolfaghari, Ming Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingMetaheuristicComputer scienceHeuristicsMathematical optimizationJob shop schedulingScheduling (production processes)Economic shortageJob shopArtificial intelligenceFlow shop schedulingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an efficient metaheuristic approach for combinatorial optimisation and scheduling problems. The hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper integrates different features of several well-known heuristics. The core component of the proposed algorithm is a simulated annealing module. This component utilises three types of memories, one long-term memory and two short-term memories. The main characteristics of the proposed metaheuristic are the use of positive (reinforcement) and negative (inhibitory) memories as well as an evolution-based diversification approach. Job shop scheduling is selected to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. Given the benchmark problem, an extended version of the proposed method is also developed and presented. The extended version has two distinct features, specifically designed for the job shop scheduling problem, that enhance the performance of the search. The first feature is a local search that partially explores alternative solutions on a critical path of any current solution. The second feature is a mechanism to resolve possible deadlocks that may occur during the search as a result of shortage in acceptable solutions. For the case of job shop scheduling, the computational results and comparison with other techniques demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed methods in the majority of cases.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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