2014
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2013.874607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulated annealing and genetic algorithms for the two-machine scheduling problem with a single server

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The work by Huang et al [32] addressed a parallel dedicated machine scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times and a single server. Several papers have examined two-parallel machine scheduling problems with a server and proposed efficient heuristic algorithms [33][34][35]. The study by Cheng et al [36] considered a common server and job preemption in parallel machine scheduling with the makespan measure and provided a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm for two machine cases and analyzed the performance ratios of some natural heuristic algorithms.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The work by Huang et al [32] addressed a parallel dedicated machine scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times and a single server. Several papers have examined two-parallel machine scheduling problems with a server and proposed efficient heuristic algorithms [33][34][35]. The study by Cheng et al [36] considered a common server and job preemption in parallel machine scheduling with the makespan measure and provided a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm for two machine cases and analyzed the performance ratios of some natural heuristic algorithms.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data were obtained from Hasani et al. (), and the same runtimes were used, where the runtime limits are (300/8) n seconds for the instances with n{8,20} and 3600 seconds for the larger instances of n{100,250,500,1000}. The data itself were generated as follows: (a) each problem size was tested under different load values L that impacts the setup times, with L{0.5,1,2}; (b) setup times are uniformly distributed in the interval (0, 100 L ) and processing times are uniformly distributed in (0, 100); (c) for small problems (n{8,20}), 10 instances were generated for each problem size and L value (total of 60 instances), and for larger problems (n{100,250,500,1000}), five instances were generated for size and L value (total of 60 instances), that is, a total of 120 problem instances were solved by each algorithm.…”
Section: Computational Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As mentioned earlier, ACO was compared to GA, SA, and B&B. The GA and SA results were obtained from Hasani et al (2014b). The MIP presented in Section 2 was solved using B&B, the latter's solver used was Lingo 11.0 from Lindo Systems.…”
Section: Computational Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations