Bio-inspired multi-objective algorithms applied on production scheduling problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production scheduling is a crucial task in the manufacturing process. In this way, the managers must decide the job's production schedule. However, this task is not simple, often requiring complex software tools and specialized algorithms to find the optimal solution. In this work, a multi-objective optimization model was developed to explore production scheduling performance measures to help managers in decision-making related to job attribution under three simulations of parallel machine scenarios. Five important production scheduling performance measures were considered (makespan, tardiness and earliness times, number of tardy and early jobs), and combined into three objective functions. To solve the scheduling problem, three multi-objective evolutionary algorithms are considered (Multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimization, Multi-objective Grey Wolf Algorithm, and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II), and the set of optimum solutions named Pareto Front, provided by each one is compared in terms of dominance, generating a new Pareto Front, denoted as Final Pareto Front. Furthermore, this Final Pareto Front is analyzed through an automatic bio-inspired clustering algorithm based on the Genetic Algorithm. The results demonstrated that the proposed approach efficiently solves the scheduling problem considered. In addition, the proposed methodology provided more robust solutions by combining different bio-inspired multi-objective techniques. Furthermore, the cluster analysis proved fundamental for a better understanding of the results and support for choosing the final optimum solution.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".