2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2007.04.096
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A combinatorial particle swarm optimization for solving multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
119
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 244 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
119
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, researchers in the past have pointed to the importance of scheduling multiple projects with constrained resources [10,12]. In the recent literature, many techniques and tools have been developed to overcome the problem of multiple projects; examples include baseline scheduling [13], a combinatorial PSO (CPSO) algorithm [14], and the hybrid genetic algorithm with fuzzy logic controller (flc-hGA) [15]. There seems to be little research that investigates the factors that may overcome the problem of multiple projects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, researchers in the past have pointed to the importance of scheduling multiple projects with constrained resources [10,12]. In the recent literature, many techniques and tools have been developed to overcome the problem of multiple projects; examples include baseline scheduling [13], a combinatorial PSO (CPSO) algorithm [14], and the hybrid genetic algorithm with fuzzy logic controller (flc-hGA) [15]. There seems to be little research that investigates the factors that may overcome the problem of multiple projects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although a comparison with the state-of-the-art results is not fair anymore, the table shows that near-optimal solution can be produced with the new procedure under high stop criterion values. (2010) 0.01% 0.09% 0.22% 0.32% 0.42% 0.57% Wang and Fang (2012) 0.12% 0.14% 0.43% 0.59% 0.90% 1.28% Wang and Fang (2011) 0.10% 0.21% 0.46% 0.57% 0.94% 1.39% Elloumi and Fortemps (2010) -v1 0.21% 0.29% 0.77% 0.91% 1.30% 1.62% Elloumi and Fortemps (2010) -v2 0.14% 0.24% 0.80% 1.14% 1.53% 2.09% Lova et al (2009) 0.06% 0.17% 0.32% 0.44% 0.63% 0.87% Jarboui et al (2008) 0.03% 0.09% 0.36% 0.44% 0.89% 1.10% Ranjbar et al (2009) 0.18% 0.65% 0.89% 0.95% 1.21% 1.64% Alcaraz et al (2003) 0.24% 0.73% 1.00% Table 1.4 reports results for the J30 instances as the average deviation from the minimal critical path length under four stop criterion values and compares the results with the procedure of Van Peteghem and Vanhoucke (2010) which is described as the best performing procedure up to today. The results show that the new SAT based procedure is not able to outperform the best performing procedure when the stop criterion is set relatively low.…”
Section: Computational Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2. Defin ition of search in PSO algorith m [25] In [27] in binary optimal problem solution and in order to prevent local optimal algorithm premature convergence, the mutation operator which is used in genetic algorithm (GA ) is co mbined with PSO which substantially imp roves the algorithm efficiency. Despite optimization variab les` not being binary and according to the positive effect of mutation in last researches, this operator is also used in this paper.…”
Section: T T V T C T R P T X T C T R G T X Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each individual moves in search space with adjustable velocity and keeps the best position gained ever in its memo ry. The best position obtained by all the individuals of the population is transferred between all particles [22][23][24][25][26]. In fact it is supposed that each particle in each mo ment knows about the best position obtained by all the individuals of the population until that mo ment.…”
Section: Objective Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%