MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811356407 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2018.2.002

Simulation optimization based ant colony algorithm for the uncertain quay crane scheduling problem

2018· article· en· W2811356407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naoufal Rouky, Mohamed Nezar Abourraja, Jaouad Boukachour, Dalila Boudebous, A. El Alaoui, Fatima El Khoukhi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundRégion Normandie
KeywordsAnt colony optimization algorithmsMathematical optimizationScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingMetaheuristicComputer scienceANTOptimization algorithmAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work is devoted to the study of the Uncertain Quay Crane Scheduling Problem (QCSP), where the loading /unloading times of containers and travel time of quay cranes are considered uncertain.The problem is solved with a Simulation Optimization approach which takes advantage of the great possibilities offered by the simulation to model the real details of the problem and the capacity of the optimization to find solutions with good quality.An Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) meta-heuristic hybridized with a Variable Neighborhood Descent (VND) local search is proposed to determine the assignments of tasks to quay cranes and the sequences of executions of tasks on each crane.Simulation is used inside the optimization algorithm to generate scenarios in agreement with the probabilities of the distributions of the uncertain parameters, thus, we carry out stochastic evaluations of the solutions found by each ant.The proposed optimization algorithm is tested first for the deterministic case on several well-known benchmark instances.Then, in the stochastic case, since no other work studied exactly the same problem with the same assumptions, the Simulation Optimization approach is compared with the deterministic version.The experimental results show that the optimization algorithm is competitive as compared to the existing methods and that the solutions found by the Simulation Optimization approach are more robust than those found by the optimization algorithm.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207