4.6 Article

Artificial bee colony algorithm including some components of iterated greedy algorithm for permutation flow shop scheduling problems

Journal

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 3469-3486

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05174-1

Keywords

Artificial bee colony; Iterated greedy; Permutation flow shop; Makespan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a hybrid solution algorithm that combines the best components of iterated greedy algorithm with artificial bee colony algorithm for permutation flow shop scheduling problems, leading to better solutions compared to variants of iterated greedy algorithms.
The permutation flow shop scheduling problem has been investigated by researchers for more than 40 years due to its complexity and lots of real-life examples of the problem. Many exact or approximate solution approaches have been presented for the problem. Among solution approaches in the literature, iterated greedy algorithm and its variants are the most effective solution methods for the problem. This paper proposes a hybrid solution algorithm that uses the best components such as local search operators and destruction/construction operators of the variants of iterated greedy algorithm in an artificial bee colony algorithm. An ANOVA is made for determining the most proper components of iterated greedy algorithm. Then, these components are combined with artificial bee colony algorithm. Furthermore, a design of experiment is made for determining the best parameter setting for the proposed hybrid artificial bee colony. The experimental results of the proposed algorithm compared with variants of iterated greedy algorithms in the literature show that the proposed algorithm produces better solutions that deviate less from the optimum or lower-bound solutions for permutation flow shop scheduling problems with the makespan performance criterion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available