MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7091515539 · doi:10.5683/sp3/tyappv

Multi-agent deep Q-network-based metaheuristic algorithm for Nurse Rostering Problem

2025· dataset· en· W7091515539 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaheuristicScheduleLocal search (optimization)Variable neighborhood searchLocal optimumProcess (computing)Markov decision processOutcome (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nurse Rostering Problem (NRP) aims to create an efficient and fair work schedule that balances both the needs of employees and the requirements of hospital operations. Traditional local search-based metaheuristic algorithms, such as adaptive neighborhood search (ANS) and variable neighborhood descent (VND), mainly focus on optimizing the current solution without considering potential long-term consequences, which may easily get stuck in local optima and limit the overall performance. Thus, we propose a multi-agent deep Q-network-based metaheuristic algorithm (MDQN-MA) for NRP to harness the strengths of various metaheuristics. Each agent encapsulates a metaheuristic algorithm, where its available actions represent different perspectives of the problem environment. By combining their strengths and various perspectives, these agents can work collaboratively to navigate and search for a broader range of potential solutions effectively. Furthermore, to improve the performance of an individual agent, we model its neighborhood search as a Markov Decision Process model and integrate a deep Q-network to consider long-term impacts for its neighborhood sequential decision-making. The experimental results clearly show that an individual agent in MDQN-MA can outperform ANS and VND, and multiple agents in MDQN-MA even perform better, achieving the best results among metaheuristic algorithms on the Second International Nurse Rostering Competition dataset.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207