A two-stage iterated greedy algorithm and a multi-objective constructive heuristic for the mixed no-idle flowshop scheduling problem to minimize makespan subject to total completion time
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced production systems usually are complex in nature and aim to deal with multiple performance measures simultaneously. Therefore, in most cases, the consideration of a single objective function is not sufficient to properly solve scheduling problems. This paper investigates the multi-objective mixed no-idle flowshop scheduling problem. The addressed optimization case is minimizing makespan subject to an upper bound on total completion time. To solve this problem, we proposed a two-stage iterated greedy and a multi-objective constructive heuristic. Moreover, we developed a new multi-objective improvement procedure focusing on increasing the performance of the developed methods in solving the addressed problem. and a new initialization procedure. We performed several computational tests in order to compare our developed methods with the main algorithms from similar scheduling problems in the literature. It was revealed that the proposed approaches give the best results compared with other state-of-the-art performing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it