4.7 Article

A discrete artificial bee colony algorithm for the no-idle permutation flowshop scheduling problem with the total tardiness criterion

期刊

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
卷 37, 期 10-11, 页码 6758-6779

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.02.011

关键词

Artificial bee colony algorithm; No-idle permutation flowshop scheduling problem; Metaheuristics; Evolutionary algorithms; Genetic algorithm

资金

  1. TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) [110M622]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [61174187]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we present a discrete artificial bee colony algorithm to solve the no-idle permutation flowshop scheduling problem with the total tardiness criterion. The no-idle permutation flowshop problem is a variant of the well-known permutation flowshop scheduling problem where idle time is not allowed on machines. In other words, the start time of processing the first job on a given machine must be delayed in order to satisfy the no-idle constraint. The paper presents the following contributions: First of all, a discrete artificial bee colony algorithm is presented to solve the problem on hand first time in the literature. Secondly, some novel methods of calculating the total tardiness from make-span are introduced for the no-idle permutation flowshop scheduling problem. Finally, the main contribution of the paper is due to the fact that a novel speed-up method for the insertion neighborhood is developed for the total tardiness criterion. The performance of the discrete artificial bee colony algorithm is evaluated against a traditional genetic algorithm. The computational results show its highly competitive performance when compared to the genetic algorithm. Ultimately, we provide the best known solutions for the total tardiness criterion with different due date tightness levels for the first time in the literature for the Taillard's benchmark suit. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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