Solving blocking flowshop scheduling problem with makespan criterion using q-learning-based iterated greedy algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes Q-learning-based iterated greedy (IGQ) algorithms to solve the blocking flowshop scheduling problem with the makespan criterion. Q learning is a model-free machine intelligence technique, which is adapted into the traditional iterated greedy (IG) algorithm to determine its parameters, mainly, the destruction size and temperature scale factor, adaptively during the search process. Besides IGQ algorithms, two different mathematical modeling techniques. One of these techniques is the constraint programming (CP) model, which is known to work well with scheduling problems. The other technique is the mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model, which provides the mathematical definition of the problem. The introduction of these mathematical models supports the validation of IGQ algorithms and provides a comparison between different exact solution methodologies. To measure and compare the performance of IGQ algorithms and mathematical models, extensive computational experiments have been performed on both small and large VRF benchmarks available in the literature. Computational results and statistical analyses indicate that IGQ algorithms generate substantially better results when compared to non-learning IG algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".