A discrete Jaya algorithm for permutation flow-shop scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jaya algorithm has recently been proposed, which is simple and efficient meta-heuristic optimization technique and has received a great attention in the world of optimization. It has been successfully applied to some thermal, design and manufacturing associated optimization problems. This paper aims to analyze the performance of Jaya algorithm for permutation flowshop scheduling problem which is a well-known NP-hard optimization problem. The objective is to minimize the makespan. First, to make Jaya algorithm adaptive to the problem, a random priority is allocated to each job in a permutation sequence. Second, a job priority vector is converted into job permutation vector by means of Largest Order Value (LOV) rule. An exhaustive comparative study along with statistical analysis is performed by comparing the results with public benchmarks and other competitive heuristics. The key feature of Jaya algorithm of simultaneous movement towards the best solution and going away from the worst solution enables it to avoid being trapped in the local optima. Furthermore, the uniqueness of Jaya algorithm compared with any other evolutionary based optimization technique is that it is totally independent of specific parameters. This substantially reduces the computation effort and numerical complexity. Computational results reveal that Jaya algorithm is efficient in most cases and has considerable potential for permutation flow-shop scheduling 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".