Performance evaluation of a GRASP-based approach for stochastic scheduling problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stochastic scheduling addresses several forms of uncertainty to represent better production environments in the real world. Stochastic scheduling has applications on several areas such as logistics, transportation, production, and healthcare, among others. This paper aims to evaluate the performance of various greedy functions for a GRASP-based approach, under stochastic processing times. Since simulation is used for estimating the objective function, two simulation techniques, Monte Carlo simulation and Common Random Numbers (CRN), are used to compare the performance of different greedy (utility) functions within the GRASP. In order to validate the proposed methodology, the expected total weighted tardiness minimization for a single machine problem was taken as case study. Results showed that both, CRN and Monte Carlo, are not statistically different regarding the expected weighted tardiness results. However, CRN showed a better performance in terms of simulation replications and the confidence interval size for the difference between means. Furthermore, the statistical analysis confirmed that there is a significant difference between greedy functions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it