MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309717115 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2022.10.004

Unrelated parallel machine scheduling with machine processing cost

2022· article· en· W4309717115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamid Safarzadeh, Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob shop schedulingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceSingle-machine schedulingScheduling (production processes)Multi-objective optimizationPareto principleScheduleMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In practical scheduling problems, some factors such as depreciation cost, green costs like the amount of energy consumption or carbon emission, other resources consumption, raw material cost, etc., are not explicitly related to the machine processing times. Most of these factors can be generally considered as machine costs. Considering the machine cost as another objective alongside the other classical time-driven decision objectives can be an attractive work in scheduling problems. However, this subject has not been discussed thoroughly in the literature for the case the machines have fixed processing costs. This paper investigates a general unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem with the machine processing cost. In this problem, it is assumed that processing a job on a machine incurs a particular cost in addition to processing time. The considered objectives are the makespan and the total cost, which are minimized simultaneously to obtain Pareto optimal solutions. The efficacy of the mathematical programming approach to solve the considered problem is evaluated rigorously in this paper. In this respect, a multiobjective solution procedure is proposed to generate a set of appropriate Pareto solutions for the decision-maker based on the mathematical programming approach. In this procedure, the ϵ-constraint method is first used to convert the bi-objective optimization problem into single-objective problems by transferring the makespan to the set of constraints. Then, the single-objective problems are solved using the CPLEX software. Moreover, some strategies are also used to reduce the solution time of the problem. At the end of the paper, comprehensive numerical experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed multiobjective solution procedure. A vast range of problem sizes is selected for the test problems, up to 50 machines and 500 jobs. Furthermore, some rigorous analyses are performed to significantly restrict the patterns of generating processing time and cost parameters for the problem instances. The experimental results demonstrate the mathematical programming solution approach's efficacy in solving the problem. It is observed that even for large-scale problems, a diverse set of uniformly distributed Pareto solutions can be generated in a reasonable time with the gaps from the optimality less than 0.03 most of the time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207