Multi-objective flexible job-shop scheduling in hospital using discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm with adaptive inertia weight (DPSO-AIW)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multi-objective Flexible Job-shop Scheduling technique for hospitals is proposed using DPSO-AIW i.e. discrete particle swarm optimization with adaptive inertia weight method. The approach encodes the layer of the chromosomes using an operation sequence (OS) and machine assignment (MA) which is a two-layer coding structure. Global selection based on the operation (GSO) of MA and random selection of OS are coupled in the initial population. Rapid non-dominated sorting yields fronts of non-domination, which are necessary for getting the Pareto optimum solution. The diversity of the population is increased during the evolution process by adaptive adjustment of the variation of the weight of inertia, expressed by ω. Then, the Pareto optimal solution found during the process is kept in the Pareto optimal solution set (POS). The discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm is utilized to solve the values of the next generation chromosomes in the discrete domain directly. Lastly, comparisons with certain current techniques and numerical simulation based on two sets of international standard examples are performed, which are already established. The findings from the comparison show that the suggested DPSO-AIW is practical, effective, and more feasible for solving the problem related to the Multi-objective Flexible Job-shop Scheduling Problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".