Page - 69 - in Algorithms for Scheduling Problems
Image of the Page - 69 -
Text of the Page - 69 -
Algorithms 2018,11, 43
Table6.Comparisonofperformances (RPD)ofheuristicsbynumberof jobs forGroup2.
n H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10
15 3.9 1.5 10.9 6.4 0.7 0.4 59.6 41.3 26.2 40.1
20 3.6 1.1 9.4 6.2 0.5 0.4 69.4 55.7 28.3 47.5
30 3.3 0.7 8.9 6.7 0.3 0.2 77.7 69.0 30.5 57.5
50 2.1 0.3 8.5 6.7 0.3 0.1 84.6 79.6 33.4 69.3
80 1.0 0.1 8.8 7.3 0.1 0.1 89.4 86.3 34.8 76.3
100 0.6 0.0 25.1 8.7 0.2 0.1 78.9 76.6 35.1 77.6
In termsof thenumbersofmachines,ascanbeseen inTables7and8, theresults indicate, ineach
group,highstabilitywithrelativelysmallvariations in theirRPDamplitudes. Thismaysuggest that
thenumberofmachineswasnotarelevant factor inperformances for theproblemaddressed.
Table7.Comparisonofperformances (RPD)ofheuristicsbynumberofmachines forGroup1.
m H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10
2 0.3 0.5 7.1 3.7 0.2 0.1 42.2 16.5 7.5 20.8
3 0.9 0.8 7.4 3.7 0.3 0.1 42.3 16.7 9.6 21.3
5 2.4 1.9 6.7 3.5 0.7 0.5 40.7 15.5 11.8 21.1
Table8.Comparisonofperformances (RPD)ofheuristicsbynumberofmachines forGroup2.
m H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10
5 0.5 0.3 12.2 7.2 0.2 0.1 78.0 69.8 28.6 61.8
10 2.1 0.7 13.0 7.1 0.4 0.2 75.9 68.0 30.7 61.3
15 3.1 0.6 11.0 7.1 0.3 0.2 76.9 68.2 32.5 61.3
20 3.9 0.8 11.6 6.6 0.5 0.3 75.5 66.4 33.7 61.1
Table9presentseachgroup’sdeviations for the fourdefinedscenarios,varyingthevaluesofT
andRduedatefactors. Theseresultswereconsistentwiththoseobtainedfromthepreviousanalysesof
rankingmethods,withH6presenting thebest result followedbyH5. Theresultsofdifferent scenarios
suggest thatvariations in the tardiness factorandduedaterangedidnotexertanyrelevant influence.
It is interesting tonote the twotopheuristics,H6andH5,obtained identical results forbothgroups in
Scenarios2and4characterizedbytheirwideduedateranges. That is,whenthe intervalbetweendue
dateswas large,neighborhoodsearchesdidnotprovide improvements.
Table9.Performances (RPD)ofheuristicsbygroupandscenario inrelation toEMforGroup1andto
thebest foundsolutionforGroup2.
Scenario H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10
Group1 1 0.9 0.8 8.7 4.6 0.4 0.3 42.2 16.5 10.0 20.8
2 1.0 0.7 4.7 2.2 0.2 0.2 45.7 19.2 4.3 20.0
3 1.9 1.7 9.3 5.1 0.8 0.5 39.3 14.7 15.0 22.1
4 1.0 1.0 5.5 2.7 0.1 0.1 39.8 14.5 9.2 21.5
Group2 1 1.7 0.7 15.0 8.9 0.4 0.2 76.3 68.1 39.4 61.6
2 1.6 0.5 7.8 4.5 0.1 0.1 78.6 71.3 13.8 62.0
3 3.7 1.0 15.2 9.4 0.7 0.4 75.1 65.4 43.0 60.9
4 2.5 0.3 9.7 5.3 0.1 0.1 76.3 67.6 29.3 61.0
5.3. Experiment2:Qualityof theHeuristicSolutions inRelation to theOptimalSolution
In thesecondpartof thecomputationalexperimentation, thequalityofeachheuristic solution
wasmeasuredby theRPDin relation to theoptimal solutionprovidedbysolving the instancesof
mathematicalmodelbyCPLEX.TheRPDiscalculatedbyExpression(14),wherenbestJIT is theoptimal
solutiongivenbyCPLEX.
69
back to the
book Algorithms for Scheduling Problems"
Algorithms for Scheduling Problems
- Title
- Algorithms for Scheduling Problems
- Authors
- Frank Werner
- Larysa Burtseva
- Yuri Sotskov
- Editor
- MDPI
- Location
- Basel
- Date
- 2018
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-03897-120-7
- Size
- 17.0 x 24.4 cm
- Pages
- 212
- Keywords
- Scheduling Problems in Logistics, Transport, Timetabling, Sports, Healthcare, Engineering, Energy Management
- Categories
- Informatik
- Technik