An improved algorithm to minimize the total completion time in a two-machine no-wait flow-shop with uncertain setup times
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since scheduling literature has a wide range of uncertainties, it is crucial to take these into account when solving performance measure problems. Otherwise, the performance may severely be affected in a negative way. In this paper, an algorithm is proposed to minimize the total completion time (TCT) of a two-machine no-wait flowshop with uncertain setup times within lower and upper bounds. The results are compared to the best existing algorithm in scheduling literature: the programming language Python is used to generate random samples with respect to various distributions, and the TCT of the proposed algorithm is compared to that of the best existing one. Results reveal that the proposed one significantly outperforms the best one given in literature for all considered distributions. Specifically, the average percentage improvement of the proposed algorithm over the best existing one is over 90%. A test of hypothesis is conducted to further confirm the results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it