MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997791715 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.585

An Efficient Two-Stage Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Job-Shop Scheduling

2019· article· en· W2997791715 on OpenAlexaff
Danial Rooyani, Fantahun M. Defersha

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationJob shop schedulingPopulationComputer scienceGenetic algorithmCoding (social sciences)Benchmark (surveying)Scheduling (production processes)Greedy algorithmSingle-machine schedulingAlgorithmMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible job shop Scheduling Problem (FJSP) is considered as an expansion of classical Job-shop Scheduling Problem (JSP) where operations have a set of eligible machines, unlike only a single machine at JSP. FJSP is classified as non-polynomial-hard (NP-hard) problem. Researchers developed different techniques including Genetic Algorithm (GA) that is widely used for solving FJSP. Regular GAs for FJSP determine both operation sequencing and machine assignment through genetic search. In this paper, we developed a highly efficient Two-Stage Genetic Algorithm (2SGA) that in the first stage, GA coding only determines the order of operations for assignment. But machines are assigned through an evaluation process that starts from the first operation in the chromosome and chooses machines with the shortest completion time considering current machine load and process time. At the end of the first stage, we have a high-quality solution population that will be fed to the second stage. The second stage follows the regular GA approach for FJSP and searches the entire solution space to explorer solutions that might have been excluded at the first stage because of its greedy approach. The efficiency of proposed 2SGA has been successfully tested using published benchmark problems and also generated examples of different sizes. The quality of the 2SGA solutions greatly exceeds regular GA, especially for larger size problems.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207