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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
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