Multi-objective optimization for repetitive scheduling under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a newly developed multi-objective optimization method for the time, cost and work interruptions for repetitive scheduling while considering uncertainties associated with different input parameters. Design/methodology/approach The design of the developed method is based on integrating six modules: uncertainty and defuzzification module using fuzzy set theory, schedule calculations module using the integration of linear scheduling method (LSM) and critical chain project management (CCPM), cost calculations module that considers direct and indirect costs, delay penalty, and work interruptions cost, multi-objective optimization module using Evolver © 7.5.2 as a genetic algorithm (GA) software, module for identifying multiple critical sequences and schedule buffers, and reporting module. Findings For duration optimization that utilizes fuzzy inputs without interruptions or adding buffers, duration and cost generated by the developed method are found to be 90 and 99 percent of those reported in the literature, respectively. For cost optimization that utilizes fuzzy inputs without interruptions, project duration generated by the developed method is found to be 93 percent of that reported in the literature after adding buffers. The developed method accelerates the generation of optimum schedules. Originality/value Unlike methods reported in the literature, the proposed method is the first multi-objective optimization method that integrates LSM and the CCPM. This method considers uncertainties of productivity rates, quantities and availability of resources while utilizing multi-objective GA function to minimize project duration, cost and work interruptions simultaneously. Schedule buffers are assigned whether optimized schedule allows for interruptions or not. This method considers delay and work interruption penalties, and bonus payments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".