Review of conventional metaheuristic techniques for resource-constrained project scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with an overview of the Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem (RCPSP) and the conventional meta-heuristic solution techniques that have attracted the attention of many researchers in the field. Therefore, researchers have developed algorithms and methods to solve the problem. This paper addresses the single-mode RCPSP where the objective is to optimize and minimize the project duration while the quantities of resources are constrained during the project execution. In this problem, resource constraints and precedence relationships between activities are known to be the most important constraints for project scheduling. In this context, the standard RCPSP is presented. Then, the classifications of the collected papers according to the year of publication and the different meta-heuristic approaches applied are presented. Five weighted articles and their meta-heuristic techniques developed for RCPSP are described in detail and their results are summarized in the corresponding tables. In addition, researchers have developed various conventional meta-heuristic algorithms such as genetic algorithms, particle swarm optimization, ant colony optimization, bee colony optimization, simulated annealing, evolutionary algorithms, and so on. It is stated that genetic algorithms are more popular among researchers than other meta-heuristics. For this reason, the various conventional meta-heuristics and their corresponding articles are also presented to give an overview of the conventional meta-heuristic optimizing techniques. Finally, the challenges of the conventional meta-heuristics are explored, which may be helpful for future studies to apply new suitable techniques to solve the Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem (RCPSP).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".