MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410888925 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2025.3.004

Performance investigation of metaheuristics for the just-in-time single-machine under different time windows and setup restriction

2025· article· en· W4410888925 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
MIGUEL GONÇALVES DE FREITAS, ALEX PARANAHYBA DE ABREU, Fábio José Ceron Branco, Hélio Yochihiro Fuchigami, Rian Tavares de Mell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsMetaheuristicComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we assess the performance of five metaheuristics for the single-machine under different time windows and sequence-dependent setup times, optimizing the total weighted earliness and tardiness: Iterated Greedy Algorithm (IGA), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), Bat Algorithm (BA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Fireworks Algorithm (FWA). Many real-world situations require delivery in a specific time interval, analogous to optimization problems with a time window in the Just-in-Time philosophy. Also, several practical situations require different time intervals to prepare the environment to process the activities depending on what was immediately done and what will be executed next, characterizing the sequence-dependent setup problem. These cases are common among operations handling materials of diverse colors, different temperatures, or high demands on sterilization requirements. Statistical results highlight the superiority of the FWA, with the best results in all the problem dimensions analyzed, especially in the larger-size instances, with only 1.23% average relative deviation against 61.18% of the known Iterated Greedy algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207