A size-reduction algorithm for the order scheduling problem with total tardiness minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated a variant of the customer order scheduling problem taking into consideration due dates to minimize the total tardiness. Since the problem under study is NP-hard, we propose an efficient size reduction algorithm (SR). We perform an extensive computational experience and compare our proposition with JPO-20 matheuristic, the best existing algorithm for the problem under study. We use the Relative Deviation Index (RDI) and the Success Rate (SRa) as the statistical indicators for the performance measure. We must emphasize that SR presented the lowest average RDI (around 15.5 %), whereas the JPO-20 presented an average RDI approximately three times higher (around 52.5 %). Furthermore, the proposed SR presented a higher average SRa (around 66.9%), whereas the JPO-20 presented a lower average success (around 25.7%). Our proposal used a lower computational effort, resulting in a reduction for the computation times of approximately 22%. The obtained results point to the superiority of the proposed SR in comparison with the JPO-20.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".