MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206961072 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2021.8.003

An algorithm for a no-wait flowshop scheduling problem for minimizing total tardiness with a constraint on total completion time

2021· article· en· W3206961072 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKuwait University
KeywordsTardinessBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceAlgorithmScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationJob shop schedulingMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a no-wait m-machine flowshop scheduling problem which is common in different manufacturing industries such as steel, pharmaceutical, and chemical. The objective is to minimize total tardiness since it minimizes penalty costs and loss of customer goodwill. We also consider the performance measure of total completion time which is significant in environments where reducing holding cost is important. We consider both performance measures with the objective of minimizing total tardiness subject to the constraint that total completion time is bounded. Given that the problem is NP-hard, we propose an algorithm. We conduct extensive computational experiments to compare the performance of the proposed algorithm with those of three well performing benchmark algorithms in the literature. Computational results indicate that the proposed algorithm reduces the error of the best existing benchmark algorithm by 88% under the same CPU times. The results are confirmed by extensive statistical analysis. Specifically, ANOVA analysis is conducted to justify the difference between the performances of the algorithms, and a test of hypothesis is performed to justify that the proposed algorithm is significantly better than the best existing benchmark algorithm with a significance level of 0.01.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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