MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162711431 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2021.2.006

An improved NEH heuristic to minimize makespan for flow shop scheduling problems

2021· article· en· W3162711431 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meenakshi Sharma, Manisha Sharma, Sameer Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
KeywordsJob shop schedulingHeuristicsFlow shop schedulingMathematical optimizationHeuristicScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceMathematicsComputational complexity theoryAlgorithmRouting (electronic design automation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow shop scheduling problems with rudimentary criteria of minimum makespan are the most important investigated problems in the field of scheduling. Generally during the process of generating an optimal sequence, multiple partial sequences claiming the optimal value of makespan are observed. In this paper a novel tie-breaking rule to select one of the best optimal sequences out of all possible partial sequences is developed which then applied to Nawaz-Enscore-Ham (NEH) heuristic to solve the scheduling problems in permutation flowshop without increasing the computational complexity. The performance of proposed heuristic is tested with other existing tie-breaking heuristics of similar complexity over Taillard and VRF's instances. Computational results reveal that in terms of solution quality, the proposed heuristic outperforms over the other NEH based heuristics of the same complexity reported in 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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207