Optimal appointment scheduling with a stochastic server: Simulation based K-steps look-ahead selection method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the problem of scheduling a finite set of customers with stochastic service times for a single-server system.The objective is to minimize the waiting time of customers, the idle time of the server, and the lateness of the schedule.Because of the NP-hardness of the problem, the optimal schedule is notoriously hard to derive with reasonable computation times.Therefore, we develop a simulation based K-steps look-ahead selection method which can result in nearly optimal schedules within reasonable computation times.Furthermore, we study the different distributed service times, e.g., Exponential, Weibull and lognormal distribution and the results show that the proposed algorithm can obtain better results than the lag order approximation method proposed by Vink et al. (2015) [Vink, W., Kuiper, A., Kemper, B., & Bhulai, S. (2015).Optimal appointment scheduling in continuous time: The lag order approximation method.European Journal of Operational Research, 240(1), 213-219.].Finally, a realistic appointment scheduling includes experiments to verify the good performance of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".