An algorithm for a no-wait flowshop scheduling problem for minimizing total tardiness with a constraint on total completion time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".