4.5 Article

Using iterated local search for solving the flow-shop problem: Parallelization, parametrization, and randomization issues

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/itor.12028

关键词

flow-shop problem; scheduling; iterated local search; parallelizable algorithms; biased randomized heuristics; metaheuristics; parameters setting

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [TRA2010-21644-C03, ECO2009-11307, DPI2007-61371]
  2. CYTED-HAROSA Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iterated local search (ILS) is a powerful framework for developing efficient algorithms for the permutation flow-shop problem (PFSP). These algorithms are relatively simple to implement and use very few parameters, which facilitates the associated fine-tuning process. Therefore, they constitute an attractive solution for real-life applications. In this paper, we discuss some parallelization, parametrization, and randomization issues related to ILS-based algorithms for solving the PFSP. In particular, the following research questions are analyzed: (a) Is it possible to simplify even more the parameter setting in an ILS framework without affecting performance? (b) How do parallelized versions of these algorithms behave as we simultaneously vary the number of different runs and the computation time? (c) For a parallelized version of these algorithms, is it worthwhile to randomize the initial solution so that different starting points are considered? (d) Are these algorithms affected by the use of a good-quality pseudorandom number generator? In this paper, we introduce the new ILS-ESP (where ESP is efficient, simple, and parallelizable) algorithm that is specifically designed to take advantage of parallel computing, allowing us to obtain competitive results in real time for all tested instances. The ILS-ESP also uses natural parameters, which simplifies the calibration process. An extensive set of computational experiments has been carried out in order to answer the aforementioned research questions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据