MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231929282 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644443

Selecting a Mix of Dispatching Rules for a Job Shop by Using Artificial Neural Networks

2021· preprint· en· W4231929282 on OpenAlexaff
Pramit Shah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkJob shop schedulingComputer scienceJob shopScheduling (production processes)Artificial intelligenceOperations researchMachine learningFlow shop schedulingMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dispatching rules are a popular and commonly researched technique for scheduling tasks in job shops. Much of the past research has looked at the performance of various dispatching rules when a single rule is applied in common to all machines. However, better schedules can frequently be obtained if the machines are allowed to use different rules from one another. This research investigates an intelligent system that selects dispatching rules to use on each machine in the shop, based on a statistical description of the routings, processing times and mix of the jobs to be processed. Randomly generated problems are scheduled using permutations of three different dispatching rules on five machines. A neural network is then trained by using a commercial package to associate the statistical description of each problem with its best solution. Once trained, a network is able to recommend for new problems a dispatching rule to use on each machine. Two networks were trained separately for minimizing makespan and the total flowtime in the job shop. Test results showed that the combination of dispatching rules suggested by the trained networks produced better results for both objectives than the alternative of using the one identical rule on all machines.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207