Journal of the Operational Research Society - Table 4 for article: Single machine scheduling with time deteriorating job values

FROM:

Single machine scheduling with time deteriorating job values

S Raut, J N D Gupta and S Swami

Table 4. Average optimality gap of the proposed algorithms for large problems

Next tablePrevious tableFigure and tables index

	n	H	HI	HIT ^*	F	FI	FIT ^*	R	RI	RIT ^*	V	VI	VIT ^*
Linear	50	1.03	0.51	0.25	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.85	0.27	0.11	2.06	0.30	0.12
truncated	100	1.08	0.53	0.25	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.88	0.29	0.11	2.02	0.31	0.12
	150	1.07	0.55	0.28	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.87	0.30	0.11	2.05	0.32	0.12
	200	1.07	0.56	0.28	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.86	0.30	0.11	2.06	0.32	0.12
Average		1.06	0.51	0.25	0.05	0.01	0.00	0.87	0.28	0.10	2.05	0.30	0.12

Capacitated	50	2.22	0.64	0.24	0.16	0.04	0.00	1.79	0.60	0.20	2.30	0.56	0.19
linear	100	2.43	0.85	0.30	0.20	0.07	0.00	1.83	0.74	0.22	2.54	0.75	0.25
	150	2.42	0.99	0.34	0.19	0.07	0.00	1.87	0.84	0.25	2.49	0.83	0.26
	200	2.52	1.07	0.35	0.21	0.09	0.00	1.96	0.94	0.26	2.58	0.93	0.28
Average		2.40	0.89	0.31	0.19	0.07	0.00	1.86	0.78	0.23	2.48	0.77	0.25

Capacitated	50	0.46	0.39	0.04	0.03	0.01	0.00	0.46	0.34	0.03	0.56	0.30	0.03
linear	100	0.58	0.49	0.07	0.05	0.03	0.00	0.56	0.42	0.05	0.69	0.38	0.05
truncated	150	0.56	0.49	0.07	0.05	0.03	0.00	0.55	0.42	0.05	0.67	0.38	0.05
	200	0.62	0.55	0.07	0.06	0.03	0.00	0.61	0.48	0.05	0.71	0.44	0.05
Average		0.56	0.48	0.06	0.05	0.02	0.00	0.54	0.42	0.05	0.66	0.37	0.04

Exponential	50	7.42	0.99		2.45	0.69		7.04	0.07		19.75	0.05
	100	8.03	1.04		2.63	0.76		7.04	0.06		19.42	0.03
	150	7.99	1.13		2.68	0.79		6.71	0.01		19.77	0.03
	200	8.22	1.17		2.77	0.86		6.85	0.03		19.91	0.03
Average		7.92	1.08		2.63	0.78		6.91	0.04		19.71	0.03

Exponential	50	5.68	3.18	1.65	0.68	0.16	0.15	3.11	0.79	0.12	11.90	0.87	0.14
truncated	100	6.16	3.46	1.80	0.70	0.17	0.17	3.30	0.84	0.10	11.67	0.92	0.12
	150	6.10	3.60	1.90	0.72	0.19	0.19	3.15	0.81	0.08	11.82	0.87	0.11
	200	6.24	3.70	1.98	0.74	0.21	0.21	3.18	0.84	0.07	11.93	0.91	0.10
Average		6.04	3.48	1.83	0.71	0.18	0.18	3.18	0.82	0.09	11.83	0.89	0.12

Capacitated	50	10.34	4.01	0.91	4.16	1.95	0.33	10.18	3.51	0.57	19.02	2.61	0.40
exponential	100	10.65	4.30	0.86	4.34	2.04	0.23	9.98	3.90	0.57	18.85	2.91	0.40
	150	10.58	4.51	0.88	4.44	2.25	0.22	9.80	4.24	0.60	19.01	3.14	0.37
	200	10.62	4.50	0.84	4.35	2.23	0.18	9.91	4.23	0.61	19.17	3.15	0.38
Average		10.55	4.33	0.87	4.32	2.12	0.24	9.97	3.97	0.59	19.01	2.95	0.39

Capacitated	50	7.19	5.25	0.47	1.29	0.60	0.04	4.86	2.64	0.26	10.83	2.69	0.27
exponential	100	7.56	5.61	0.51	1.40	0.72	0.01	5.02	2.89	0.27	10.86	2.95	0.28
truncated	150	7.59	5.82	0.52	1.51	0.84	0.01	5.04	3.03	0.27	10.96	3.08	0.29
	200	7.63	5.80	0.50	1.52	0.87	0.00	5.00	3.06	0.28	11.09	3.11	0.29
Average		7.49	5.62	0.50	1.43	0.76	0.02	4.98	2.91	0.27	10.94	2.96	0.28

* Depending on the specific case being considered, T represents the use of algorithm T, C, or TC.

Next tablePrevious tableFigure and tables index

BACK TO ARTICLE

TABLE 4

Single machine scheduling with time deteriorating job values

Table 4. Average optimality gap of the proposed algorithms for large problems