Solving Fuzzy Job-Shop Scheduling Problem Using DE Algorithm Improved by a Selection Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of fuzzy sets makes job-shop scheduling problem (JSSP) become better aligned with the reality. This article addresses the JSSP with fuzzy execution time and fuzzy completion time (FJSSP). We choose the classic differential evolution (DE) algorithm as the basic optimization framework. The advantage of the DE algorithm is that it uses a special evolutionary strategy of difference vector sets to carry out mutation operation. However, DE is not very effective in solving some instances of FJSSP. Therefore, we propose a novel selection mechanism augmenting the generic DE algorithm (NSODE) to achieve better optimization results. The proposed selection operator adopted in this article aims at a temporary retention of all children generated by the parent generation, and then selecting N better solutions as the new individuals from N parents and N children. Various examples of fuzzy shop scheduling problems are experimented with to test the performance of the improved DE algorithm. The NSODE algorithm is compared with a variety of existing algorithms such as ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization, and cuckoo search. Experimental results show that the NSODE can obtain superior feasible solutions compared with solutions produced by several algorithms reported in the literature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".