Figure 1.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n
-
Previous Article
Principal component analysis with drop rank covariance matrix
- JIMO Home
- This Issue
-
Next Article
Worst-case analysis of Gini mean difference safety measure
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020054
A better dominance relation and heuristics for Two-Machine No-Wait Flowshops with Maximum Lateness Performance Measure
| 1. | Department of Mathematical Sciences, Kean University, New Jersey, USA |
| 2. | Mathematics & Natural Sciences Department, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait |
| 3. | Economics & Finance Department, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait |
| 4. | Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Kuwait University, Kuwait |
In this paper, we consider a manufacturing system with two-machine no-wait flowshop scheduling problem where setup times are uncertain. The problem with the performance measure of maximum lateness was addressed in the literature (Computational and Applied Mathematics 37, 6774-6794) where dominance relations were proposed. We establish a new dominance relation and show that the new dominance relation is, on average, about 90$ \% $ more efficient than the existing ones. Moreover, since it is highly unlikely to find optimal solutions for problems of reasonable size by utilizing dominance relations and since there exist no heuristic in the literature for the problem, we propose constructive heuristics to solve real life problems. We conduct extensive computational experiments to evaluate the proposed heuristics. Computational experiments indicate that the performance of the worst proposed heuristic is at least 20$ \% $ better than a benchmark solution. Furthermore, they also indicate that the best proposed heuristic is about 130$ \% $ better than the worst one. The average CPU time of the heuristics is significantly less than a second.
Mathematics Subject Classification:
90B36.
Citation:
Muberra Allahverdi, Harun Aydilek, Asiye Aydilek, Ali Allahverdi.
A better dominance relation and heuristics for Two-Machine No-Wait Flowshops with Maximum Lateness Performance Measure. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020054
![]()
References:
| [1] |
A. Allahverdi,
A survey of scheduling problems with no-wait in process, European Journal of Operational Research, 255 (2016), 665-686.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.05.036. |
| [2] |
A. Allahverdi,
The third comprehensive survey on scheduling problems with setup times/costs, European Journal of Operational Research, 246 (2015), 345-378.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.004. |
| [3] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize makespan with bounded setup and processing times, Int. Journal of Agile Manufacturing, 8 (2005), 145-153. Google Scholar |
| [4] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize maximum lateness with bounded setup and processing times, Kuwait Journal of Science and Engineering, 33 (2006), 233-251. Google Scholar |
| [5] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize total completion time with bounded setup and processing times, Int. Journal of Production Economics, 103 (2006), 386-400. Google Scholar |
| [6] |
A. Allahverdi, T. Aldowaisan and Y. N. Sotskov,
Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize makespan or total completion time with random and bounded setup times, Int. Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 39 (2003), 2475-2486.
doi: 10.1155/S016117120321019X. |
| [7] |
A. Allahverdi and M. Allahverdi,
Two-machine no-wait flowshop scheduling problem with uncertain setup times to minimize maximum lateness, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 37 (2018), 6774-6794.
doi: 10.1007/s40314-018-0694-3. |
| [8] |
A. Aydilek, H. Aydilek and A. Allahverdi, Increasing the profitability and competitiveness in a production environment with random and bounded setup times, Int. Journal of Production Research, 51 (2013), 106-117. Google Scholar |
| [9] |
A. Aydilek, H. Aydilek and A. Allahverdi, Production in a two-machine flowshop scheduling environment with uncertain processing and setup times to minimize makespan, Int. Journal of Production Research, 53 (2015), 2803-2819. Google Scholar |
| [10] |
O. Braun, T.-C. Lai, G. Schmidt, So tskov and N. Yu, Stability of Johnson's schedule with respect to limited machine availability, Int. Journal of Production Research, 40 (2002), 4381-4400. Google Scholar |
| [11] |
E. M. Gonzalez-Neira, D. Ferone, S. Hatami and A. A. Juan, A biased-randomized simheuristic for the distributed assembly permutation flowshop problem with stochastic processing times, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 79 (2017), 23-36. Google Scholar |
| [12] |
N. G. Hall and M. E. Posner,
Generating experimental data for computational testing with machine scheduling applications, Operations Research, 49 (2001), 854-865.
doi: 10.1287/opre.49.6.854.10014. |
| [13] |
N. G. Hall and C. Sriskandarajah,
A survey of machine scheduling problems with blocking and no-wait in process, Operations Research, 44 (1996), 510-525.
doi: 10.1287/opre.44.3.510. |
| [14] |
V. N. Hsu, R. De Matta and C.-Y. Lee,
Scheduling patients in an ambulatory surgical center, Naval Research Logistics, 50 (2003), 218-238.
doi: 10.1002/nav.10060. |
| [15] |
Y. D. Kim,
A new branch and bound algorithm for minimizing mean tardiness in two machine flowshops, Computers and Operations Research, 20 (1993), 391-401.
doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(93)90083-U. |
| [16] |
S. C. Kim and P. M. Bobrowski, Scheduling jobs with uncertain setup times and sequence dependency, Omega, Int. Journal of Management Science, 25 (1997), 437-447. Google Scholar |
| [17] |
J. Kim, A. Kröller, J. S. B. Mitchell and G. R. Sabhnani, Scheduling aircraft to reduce controller workload, Open Access Series in Informatics, 12 (2009). Google Scholar |
| [18] |
S. Q. Liu and E. Kozan, Scheduling trains with priorities: A no-wait Blocking Parallel-Machine Job-Shop Scheduling model, Transportation Science, 45 (2011), 175-198. Google Scholar |
| [19] |
C. C. Lu, S. W. Lin and K. C. Ying, Minimizing worst-case regret of makespan on a single machine with uncertain processing and setup times, Applied Soft Computing, 23 (2014), 144-151. Google Scholar |
| [20] |
R. Macchiaroli, S. Molé and S. Riemma, Modelling and optimization of industrial manufacturing processes subject to no-wait constraints, Int. Journal of Production Research, 37 (1999), 2585-2607. Google Scholar |
| [21] |
N. M. Matsveichuk, Y. N. Sotskov and F. Werner,
Partial job order for solving the two-machine flow-shop minimum-length problem with uncertain processing times, Optimization, 60 (2011), 1493-1517.
doi: 10.1080/02331931003657691. |
| [22] |
S. Mustu and T. Eren, The single machine scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times and a learning effect on processing times, Applied Soft Computing, 71 (2018), 291-306. Google Scholar |
| [23] |
Y. N. Sotskov, N. G. Egorova and T. C. Lai,
Minimizing total weighted flow time of a set of jobs with interval processing times, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 50 (2009), 556-573.
doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2009.03.006. |
| [24] |
Y. N. Sotskov and T. C. Lai,
Minimizing total weighted flow under uncertainty using dominance and a stability box, Computers and Operations Research, 39 (2012), 1271-1289.
doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2011.02.001. |
| [25] |
Y. N. Sotskov and N. M. Matsveichuk,
Uncertainty measure for the Bellman-Johnson problem with interval processing times, Cybernetics and System Analysis, 48 (2012), 641-652.
doi: 10.1007/s10559-012-9445-4. |
| [26] |
E. Vallada and R. Ruiz, Genetic algorithms with path relinking for the minimum tardiness permutation flowshop problem, OMEGA The International Journal of Management Science, 38 (2010), 57-67. Google Scholar |
| [27] |
K. Wang and S. H. Choi, A decomposition-based approach to flexible flow shop scheduling under machine breakdown, Int. Journal of Production Research, 50 (2012), 215-234. Google Scholar |
| [28] |
N. Xie and N. Chen, Flexible job shop scheduling problem with interval grey processing time, Applied Soft Computing, 70 (2018), 513-524. Google Scholar |
| [29] |
J. Xu, C. C. Wu, Y. Yin and W. C. Lin, An iterated local search for the multi-objective permutation flowshop scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times, Applied Soft Computing, 52 (2017), 39-47. Google Scholar |
show all references
References:
| [1] |
A. Allahverdi,
A survey of scheduling problems with no-wait in process, European Journal of Operational Research, 255 (2016), 665-686.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.05.036. |
| [2] |
A. Allahverdi,
The third comprehensive survey on scheduling problems with setup times/costs, European Journal of Operational Research, 246 (2015), 345-378.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.004. |
| [3] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize makespan with bounded setup and processing times, Int. Journal of Agile Manufacturing, 8 (2005), 145-153. Google Scholar |
| [4] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize maximum lateness with bounded setup and processing times, Kuwait Journal of Science and Engineering, 33 (2006), 233-251. Google Scholar |
| [5] |
A. Allahverdi, Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize total completion time with bounded setup and processing times, Int. Journal of Production Economics, 103 (2006), 386-400. Google Scholar |
| [6] |
A. Allahverdi, T. Aldowaisan and Y. N. Sotskov,
Two-machine flowshop scheduling problem to minimize makespan or total completion time with random and bounded setup times, Int. Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 39 (2003), 2475-2486.
doi: 10.1155/S016117120321019X. |
| [7] |
A. Allahverdi and M. Allahverdi,
Two-machine no-wait flowshop scheduling problem with uncertain setup times to minimize maximum lateness, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 37 (2018), 6774-6794.
doi: 10.1007/s40314-018-0694-3. |
| [8] |
A. Aydilek, H. Aydilek and A. Allahverdi, Increasing the profitability and competitiveness in a production environment with random and bounded setup times, Int. Journal of Production Research, 51 (2013), 106-117. Google Scholar |
| [9] |
A. Aydilek, H. Aydilek and A. Allahverdi, Production in a two-machine flowshop scheduling environment with uncertain processing and setup times to minimize makespan, Int. Journal of Production Research, 53 (2015), 2803-2819. Google Scholar |
| [10] |
O. Braun, T.-C. Lai, G. Schmidt, So tskov and N. Yu, Stability of Johnson's schedule with respect to limited machine availability, Int. Journal of Production Research, 40 (2002), 4381-4400. Google Scholar |
| [11] |
E. M. Gonzalez-Neira, D. Ferone, S. Hatami and A. A. Juan, A biased-randomized simheuristic for the distributed assembly permutation flowshop problem with stochastic processing times, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 79 (2017), 23-36. Google Scholar |
| [12] |
N. G. Hall and M. E. Posner,
Generating experimental data for computational testing with machine scheduling applications, Operations Research, 49 (2001), 854-865.
doi: 10.1287/opre.49.6.854.10014. |
| [13] |
N. G. Hall and C. Sriskandarajah,
A survey of machine scheduling problems with blocking and no-wait in process, Operations Research, 44 (1996), 510-525.
doi: 10.1287/opre.44.3.510. |
| [14] |
V. N. Hsu, R. De Matta and C.-Y. Lee,
Scheduling patients in an ambulatory surgical center, Naval Research Logistics, 50 (2003), 218-238.
doi: 10.1002/nav.10060. |
| [15] |
Y. D. Kim,
A new branch and bound algorithm for minimizing mean tardiness in two machine flowshops, Computers and Operations Research, 20 (1993), 391-401.
doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(93)90083-U. |
| [16] |
S. C. Kim and P. M. Bobrowski, Scheduling jobs with uncertain setup times and sequence dependency, Omega, Int. Journal of Management Science, 25 (1997), 437-447. Google Scholar |
| [17] |
J. Kim, A. Kröller, J. S. B. Mitchell and G. R. Sabhnani, Scheduling aircraft to reduce controller workload, Open Access Series in Informatics, 12 (2009). Google Scholar |
| [18] |
S. Q. Liu and E. Kozan, Scheduling trains with priorities: A no-wait Blocking Parallel-Machine Job-Shop Scheduling model, Transportation Science, 45 (2011), 175-198. Google Scholar |
| [19] |
C. C. Lu, S. W. Lin and K. C. Ying, Minimizing worst-case regret of makespan on a single machine with uncertain processing and setup times, Applied Soft Computing, 23 (2014), 144-151. Google Scholar |
| [20] |
R. Macchiaroli, S. Molé and S. Riemma, Modelling and optimization of industrial manufacturing processes subject to no-wait constraints, Int. Journal of Production Research, 37 (1999), 2585-2607. Google Scholar |
| [21] |
N. M. Matsveichuk, Y. N. Sotskov and F. Werner,
Partial job order for solving the two-machine flow-shop minimum-length problem with uncertain processing times, Optimization, 60 (2011), 1493-1517.
doi: 10.1080/02331931003657691. |
| [22] |
S. Mustu and T. Eren, The single machine scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times and a learning effect on processing times, Applied Soft Computing, 71 (2018), 291-306. Google Scholar |
| [23] |
Y. N. Sotskov, N. G. Egorova and T. C. Lai,
Minimizing total weighted flow time of a set of jobs with interval processing times, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 50 (2009), 556-573.
doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2009.03.006. |
| [24] |
Y. N. Sotskov and T. C. Lai,
Minimizing total weighted flow under uncertainty using dominance and a stability box, Computers and Operations Research, 39 (2012), 1271-1289.
doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2011.02.001. |
| [25] |
Y. N. Sotskov and N. M. Matsveichuk,
Uncertainty measure for the Bellman-Johnson problem with interval processing times, Cybernetics and System Analysis, 48 (2012), 641-652.
doi: 10.1007/s10559-012-9445-4. |
| [26] |
E. Vallada and R. Ruiz, Genetic algorithms with path relinking for the minimum tardiness permutation flowshop problem, OMEGA The International Journal of Management Science, 38 (2010), 57-67. Google Scholar |
| [27] |
K. Wang and S. H. Choi, A decomposition-based approach to flexible flow shop scheduling under machine breakdown, Int. Journal of Production Research, 50 (2012), 215-234. Google Scholar |
| [28] |
N. Xie and N. Chen, Flexible job shop scheduling problem with interval grey processing time, Applied Soft Computing, 70 (2018), 513-524. Google Scholar |
| [29] |
J. Xu, C. C. Wu, Y. Yin and W. C. Lin, An iterated local search for the multi-objective permutation flowshop scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup times, Applied Soft Computing, 52 (2017), 39-47. Google Scholar |
Figure 2.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to R
Figure 3.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to T
Figure 4.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to $ \Delta $
Figure 5.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Positive Exponential)
Figure 6.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Negative Exponential)
Figure 7.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Uniform)
Figure 8.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Normal)
Figure 9.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Positive Linear)
Figure 10.
The average errors of the heuristics with respect to n (Negative Linear)
Figure 11.
The average improvements of the dominance relation with respect to n
Table 1.
Evaluation of the newly established dominance relation
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | D | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| 5 | 122.1 | 139 | 69.1 | 133.2 | 85.5 | 112.1 | 80.8 | 108.7 | 96.3 | |
| 30 | 10 | 152 | 156.2 | 133.6 | 153.8 | 93.2 | 131.8 | 125 | 85.3 | 96.7 |
| 20 | 137.9 | 96 | 125 | 172 | 183 | 174.7 | 135.2 | 75.7 | 110.6 | |
| 5 | 106.6 | 72.1 | 98.6 | 55.5 | 94.6 | 84.2 | 94.4 | 103.4 | 80.7 | |
| 40 | 10 | 100 | 66.8 | 90.2 | 116.8 | 112.4 | 91.7 | 68.5 | 86 | 106 |
| 20 | 124.2 | 141.9 | 140 | 90.5 | 56.1 | 103.7 | 74.5 | 68.6 | 82.5 | |
| 5 | 75.7 | 88.2 | 80.5 | 84.4 | 91.2 | 95.6 | 88.1 | 59.7 | 95.1 | |
| 50 | 10 | 66.5 | 68 | 107.4 | 118.3 | 87.8 | 91.2 | 76.6 | 61.6 | 83.4 |
| 20 | 63.5 | 121.4 | 106.3 | 74.2 | 40 | 140 | 69.2 | 75.7 | 76.8 | |
| 5 | 100 | 106.1 | 107.7 | 64 | 71.3 | 71.1 | 78 | 56.5 | 57.8 | |
| 60 | 10 | 66.2 | 84.3 | 79.7 | 63.5 | 143 | 80.9 | 46.8 | 94.7 | 70.8 |
| 20 | 106.5 | 89.1 | 62.1 | 95.9 | 81.1 | 76.4 | 65.1 | 58.4 | 75.7 | |
| 5 | 78.4 | 52.2 | 54.4 | 65.9 | 78.3 | 62.5 | 70.3 | 110.8 | 68.2 | |
| 70 | 10 | 77.1 | 81.9 | 133.5 | 57.8 | 52.4 | 74.7 | 66.6 | 72.6 | 89.7 |
| 20 | 57.9 | 47.6 | 108.3 | 88.3 | 96.2 | 40.2 | 77 | 54.9 | 61.8 | |
| 5 | 96.6 | 91.5 | 82.1 | 80.6 | 84.2 | 85.1 | 82.3 | 87.8 | 79.6 | |
| Avg | 10 | 92.4 | 91.4 | 108.9 | 102 | 97.7 | 94.1 | 76.7 | 80 | 89.3 |
| 20 | 98 | 99.2 | 108.3 | 104.2 | 91.3 | 107 | 84.2 | 66.7 | 81.5 |
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | D | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| 5 | 122.1 | 139 | 69.1 | 133.2 | 85.5 | 112.1 | 80.8 | 108.7 | 96.3 | |
| 30 | 10 | 152 | 156.2 | 133.6 | 153.8 | 93.2 | 131.8 | 125 | 85.3 | 96.7 |
| 20 | 137.9 | 96 | 125 | 172 | 183 | 174.7 | 135.2 | 75.7 | 110.6 | |
| 5 | 106.6 | 72.1 | 98.6 | 55.5 | 94.6 | 84.2 | 94.4 | 103.4 | 80.7 | |
| 40 | 10 | 100 | 66.8 | 90.2 | 116.8 | 112.4 | 91.7 | 68.5 | 86 | 106 |
| 20 | 124.2 | 141.9 | 140 | 90.5 | 56.1 | 103.7 | 74.5 | 68.6 | 82.5 | |
| 5 | 75.7 | 88.2 | 80.5 | 84.4 | 91.2 | 95.6 | 88.1 | 59.7 | 95.1 | |
| 50 | 10 | 66.5 | 68 | 107.4 | 118.3 | 87.8 | 91.2 | 76.6 | 61.6 | 83.4 |
| 20 | 63.5 | 121.4 | 106.3 | 74.2 | 40 | 140 | 69.2 | 75.7 | 76.8 | |
| 5 | 100 | 106.1 | 107.7 | 64 | 71.3 | 71.1 | 78 | 56.5 | 57.8 | |
| 60 | 10 | 66.2 | 84.3 | 79.7 | 63.5 | 143 | 80.9 | 46.8 | 94.7 | 70.8 |
| 20 | 106.5 | 89.1 | 62.1 | 95.9 | 81.1 | 76.4 | 65.1 | 58.4 | 75.7 | |
| 5 | 78.4 | 52.2 | 54.4 | 65.9 | 78.3 | 62.5 | 70.3 | 110.8 | 68.2 | |
| 70 | 10 | 77.1 | 81.9 | 133.5 | 57.8 | 52.4 | 74.7 | 66.6 | 72.6 | 89.7 |
| 20 | 57.9 | 47.6 | 108.3 | 88.3 | 96.2 | 40.2 | 77 | 54.9 | 61.8 | |
| 5 | 96.6 | 91.5 | 82.1 | 80.6 | 84.2 | 85.1 | 82.3 | 87.8 | 79.6 | |
| Avg | 10 | 92.4 | 91.4 | 108.9 | 102 | 97.7 | 94.1 | 76.7 | 80 | 89.3 |
| 20 | 98 | 99.2 | 108.3 | 104.2 | 91.3 | 107 | 84.2 | 66.7 | 81.5 |
Table 2.
Errors of Heuristics when $ \Delta = 5 $
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 1.21 | 1.81 | 6.67 | 0.4 | 1.09 | 1.47 | 0.32 | 0.55 | 0.58 | |
| CH2 | 1.2 | 1.54 | 6.58 | 0.32 | 1.26 | 0.82 | 0.28 | 0.64 | 0.37 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 0.91 | 2.4 | 3.05 | 0.51 | 1.08 | 1.44 | 0.12 | 0.67 | 0.26 |
| CH4 | 0.81 | 1.9 | 2.07 | 0.54 | 0.74 | 1.3 | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.23 | |
| CH5 | 0.99 | 2.13 | 1.98 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 1.33 | 0.26 | 0.48 | 0.52 | |
| CH1 | 0.99 | 5.3 | 13.96 | 0.48 | 0.96 | 2.86 | 0.26 | 0.56 | 0.92 | |
| CH2 | 0.78 | 4.4 | 13.05 | 0.4 | 1.06 | 1.88 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.87 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 0.76 | 4.55 | 10.53 | 0.5 | 1.27 | 1.53 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.37 |
| CH4 | 0.59 | 2.72 | 3.95 | 0.33 | 0.85 | 1.03 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.34 | |
| CH5 | 0.97 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.32 | 0.63 | 0.47 | |
| CH1 | 1.19 | 4.49 | 11.86 | 0.33 | 1.76 | 2.28 | 0.29 | 0.69 | 1.2 | |
| CH2 | 0.92 | 3.04 | 11.18 | 0.39 | 1.91 | 1.69 | 0.24 | 0.47 | 1.3 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 0.77 | 4 | 9.17 | 0.31 | 1.36 | 1.07 | 0.27 | 0.52 | 0.94 |
| CH4 | 0.61 | 2.76 | 4.17 | 0.3 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.33 | |
| CH5 | 1.01 | 2.68 | 4.27 | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.8 | 0.36 | 0.59 | 0.34 | |
| CH1 | 1.23 | 4.26 | 6.22 | 0.71 | 1.37 | 2.1 | 0.38 | 0.69 | 1.07 | |
| CH2 | 1.26 | 3.57 | 4.93 | 0.59 | 1.11 | 1.76 | 0.34 | 0.71 | 0.82 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 0.98 | 3.85 | 4.68 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 1.05 | 0.4 | 0.72 | 0.91 |
| CH4 | 0.69 | 2.54 | 4.17 | 0.35 | 0.79 | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.4 | 0.7 | |
| CH5 | 0.72 | 2.64 | 4.8 | 0.47 | 0.96 | 0.64 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 0.71 | |
| CH1 | 1.28 | 3.95 | 9.17 | 0.48 | 0.76 | 1.49 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.77 | |
| CH2 | 1.08 | 3.7 | 4.04 | 0.53 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.57 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.18 | 2.62 | 3.2 | 0.36 | 0.79 | 1.32 | 0.3 | 0.38 | 0.57 |
| CH4 | 0.87 | 1.9 | 3.11 | 0.3 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.38 | |
| CH5 | 0.95 | 2.75 | 2.58 | 0.37 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.26 | 0.67 | 0.62 |
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 1.21 | 1.81 | 6.67 | 0.4 | 1.09 | 1.47 | 0.32 | 0.55 | 0.58 | |
| CH2 | 1.2 | 1.54 | 6.58 | 0.32 | 1.26 | 0.82 | 0.28 | 0.64 | 0.37 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 0.91 | 2.4 | 3.05 | 0.51 | 1.08 | 1.44 | 0.12 | 0.67 | 0.26 |
| CH4 | 0.81 | 1.9 | 2.07 | 0.54 | 0.74 | 1.3 | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.23 | |
| CH5 | 0.99 | 2.13 | 1.98 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 1.33 | 0.26 | 0.48 | 0.52 | |
| CH1 | 0.99 | 5.3 | 13.96 | 0.48 | 0.96 | 2.86 | 0.26 | 0.56 | 0.92 | |
| CH2 | 0.78 | 4.4 | 13.05 | 0.4 | 1.06 | 1.88 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.87 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 0.76 | 4.55 | 10.53 | 0.5 | 1.27 | 1.53 | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.37 |
| CH4 | 0.59 | 2.72 | 3.95 | 0.33 | 0.85 | 1.03 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.34 | |
| CH5 | 0.97 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.32 | 0.63 | 0.47 | |
| CH1 | 1.19 | 4.49 | 11.86 | 0.33 | 1.76 | 2.28 | 0.29 | 0.69 | 1.2 | |
| CH2 | 0.92 | 3.04 | 11.18 | 0.39 | 1.91 | 1.69 | 0.24 | 0.47 | 1.3 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 0.77 | 4 | 9.17 | 0.31 | 1.36 | 1.07 | 0.27 | 0.52 | 0.94 |
| CH4 | 0.61 | 2.76 | 4.17 | 0.3 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.33 | |
| CH5 | 1.01 | 2.68 | 4.27 | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.8 | 0.36 | 0.59 | 0.34 | |
| CH1 | 1.23 | 4.26 | 6.22 | 0.71 | 1.37 | 2.1 | 0.38 | 0.69 | 1.07 | |
| CH2 | 1.26 | 3.57 | 4.93 | 0.59 | 1.11 | 1.76 | 0.34 | 0.71 | 0.82 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 0.98 | 3.85 | 4.68 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 1.05 | 0.4 | 0.72 | 0.91 |
| CH4 | 0.69 | 2.54 | 4.17 | 0.35 | 0.79 | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.4 | 0.7 | |
| CH5 | 0.72 | 2.64 | 4.8 | 0.47 | 0.96 | 0.64 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 0.71 | |
| CH1 | 1.28 | 3.95 | 9.17 | 0.48 | 0.76 | 1.49 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.77 | |
| CH2 | 1.08 | 3.7 | 4.04 | 0.53 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.57 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.18 | 2.62 | 3.2 | 0.36 | 0.79 | 1.32 | 0.3 | 0.38 | 0.57 |
| CH4 | 0.87 | 1.9 | 3.11 | 0.3 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.38 | |
| CH5 | 0.95 | 2.75 | 2.58 | 0.37 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.26 | 0.67 | 0.62 |
Table 3.
Errors of Heuristics when $ \Delta = 10 $
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 1.48 | 4.64 | 15.59 | 0.79 | 1.46 | 2.05 | 0.43 | 1.02 | 2.82 | |
| CH2 | 1.36 | 4.14 | 10.67 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 1.52 | 0.33 | 0.97 | 2.73 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 1.39 | 3.33 | 8.59 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 1.47 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 2.23 |
| CH4 | 0.8 | 2.64 | 4.42 | 0.56 | 0.51 | 1.1 | 0.35 | 0.83 | 0.81 | |
| CH5 | 1.64 | 2.53 | 3.96 | 0.7 | 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.42 | 0.91 | 0.82 | |
| CH1 | 1.44 | 3.81 | 23.96 | 0.59 | 1.91 | 2.04 | 0.51 | 1.12 | 1.41 | |
| CH2 | 1.58 | 2.74 | 17.86 | 0.62 | 1.4 | 2.22 | 0.4 | 0.77 | 1.27 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 1.06 | 2.16 | 13.1 | 0.51 | 1.56 | 1.97 | 0.18 | 0.83 | 1.01 |
| CH4 | 0.85 | 2.31 | 1.92 | 0.56 | 0.65 | 1.4 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.44 | |
| CH5 | 1.42 | 3.14 | 3.68 | 0.69 | 0.87 | 1.7 | 0.36 | 0.53 | 0.55 | |
| CH1 | 1.47 | 5.64 | 15.22 | 0.68 | 1.97 | 2.68 | 0.42 | 0.89 | 2.04 | |
| CH2 | 1.32 | 5.29 | 11.23 | 0.4 | 1.41 | 2.37 | 0.32 | 0.59 | 1.64 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 0.85 | 4.06 | 7.54 | 0.42 | 1.27 | 1.85 | 0.27 | 0.74 | 1.3 |
| CH4 | 0.74 | 3.81 | 4.92 | 0.43 | 0.89 | 1.26 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.92 | |
| CH5 | 1.23 | 4.04 | 9.89 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 1.29 | 0.52 | 0.45 | 0.91 | |
| CH1 | 1.4 | 4.32 | 11.36 | 0.56 | 2.63 | 2.47 | 0.43 | 0.84 | 1.95 | |
| CH2 | 1.24 | 5.41 | 10.53 | 0.57 | 1.87 | 2.23 | 0.34 | 0.62 | 1.41 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 1.21 | 2.73 | 7.78 | 0.38 | 1.34 | 0.97 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.96 |
| CH4 | 1.27 | 2.63 | 2.8 | 0.37 | 1.17 | 0.78 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.61 | |
| CH5 | 1.37 | 2.43 | 5.1 | 0.51 | 1.16 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.9 | |
| CH1 | 1.23 | 5.9 | 11.68 | 0.77 | 1.81 | 2.68 | 0.31 | 1.22 | 1.2 | |
| CH2 | 1.05 | 3.84 | 8.2 | 0.59 | 1.33 | 2.24 | 0.25 | 0.78 | 0.98 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.08 | 3.58 | 5.97 | 0.44 | 0.95 | 1.46 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
| CH4 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 4.29 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.9 | 0.28 | 0.54 | 0.54 | |
| CH5 | 1.78 | 3.13 | 3.71 | 0.55 | 1.45 | 1.58 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 1.48 | 4.64 | 15.59 | 0.79 | 1.46 | 2.05 | 0.43 | 1.02 | 2.82 | |
| CH2 | 1.36 | 4.14 | 10.67 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 1.52 | 0.33 | 0.97 | 2.73 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 1.39 | 3.33 | 8.59 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 1.47 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 2.23 |
| CH4 | 0.8 | 2.64 | 4.42 | 0.56 | 0.51 | 1.1 | 0.35 | 0.83 | 0.81 | |
| CH5 | 1.64 | 2.53 | 3.96 | 0.7 | 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.42 | 0.91 | 0.82 | |
| CH1 | 1.44 | 3.81 | 23.96 | 0.59 | 1.91 | 2.04 | 0.51 | 1.12 | 1.41 | |
| CH2 | 1.58 | 2.74 | 17.86 | 0.62 | 1.4 | 2.22 | 0.4 | 0.77 | 1.27 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 1.06 | 2.16 | 13.1 | 0.51 | 1.56 | 1.97 | 0.18 | 0.83 | 1.01 |
| CH4 | 0.85 | 2.31 | 1.92 | 0.56 | 0.65 | 1.4 | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.44 | |
| CH5 | 1.42 | 3.14 | 3.68 | 0.69 | 0.87 | 1.7 | 0.36 | 0.53 | 0.55 | |
| CH1 | 1.47 | 5.64 | 15.22 | 0.68 | 1.97 | 2.68 | 0.42 | 0.89 | 2.04 | |
| CH2 | 1.32 | 5.29 | 11.23 | 0.4 | 1.41 | 2.37 | 0.32 | 0.59 | 1.64 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 0.85 | 4.06 | 7.54 | 0.42 | 1.27 | 1.85 | 0.27 | 0.74 | 1.3 |
| CH4 | 0.74 | 3.81 | 4.92 | 0.43 | 0.89 | 1.26 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.92 | |
| CH5 | 1.23 | 4.04 | 9.89 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 1.29 | 0.52 | 0.45 | 0.91 | |
| CH1 | 1.4 | 4.32 | 11.36 | 0.56 | 2.63 | 2.47 | 0.43 | 0.84 | 1.95 | |
| CH2 | 1.24 | 5.41 | 10.53 | 0.57 | 1.87 | 2.23 | 0.34 | 0.62 | 1.41 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 1.21 | 2.73 | 7.78 | 0.38 | 1.34 | 0.97 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.96 |
| CH4 | 1.27 | 2.63 | 2.8 | 0.37 | 1.17 | 0.78 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.61 | |
| CH5 | 1.37 | 2.43 | 5.1 | 0.51 | 1.16 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.9 | |
| CH1 | 1.23 | 5.9 | 11.68 | 0.77 | 1.81 | 2.68 | 0.31 | 1.22 | 1.2 | |
| CH2 | 1.05 | 3.84 | 8.2 | 0.59 | 1.33 | 2.24 | 0.25 | 0.78 | 0.98 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.08 | 3.58 | 5.97 | 0.44 | 0.95 | 1.46 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
| CH4 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 4.29 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.9 | 0.28 | 0.54 | 0.54 | |
| CH5 | 1.78 | 3.13 | 3.71 | 0.55 | 1.45 | 1.58 | 0.4 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
Table 4.
Errors of Heuristics when $ \Delta = 20 $
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 2.47 | 6.96 | 24.94 | 0.87 | 3.03 | 4.50 | 0.78 | 1.22 | 2.51 | |
| CH2 | 1.38 | 3.93 | 8.76 | 0.54 | 2.46 | 3.79 | 0.66 | 0.88 | 1.80 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 1.22 | 3.42 | 12.21 | 0.56 | 1.47 | 3.14 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 1.52 |
| CH4 | 0.91 | 4.07 | 10.30 | 0.69 | 1.51 | 1.66 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 1.28 | |
| CH5 | 1.73 | 4.18 | 14.58 | 1.19 | 1.42 | 1.33 | 0.65 | 0.92 | 1.23 | |
| CH1 | 1.71 | 7.57 | 19.56 | 0.94 | 1.86 | 4.27 | 0.64 | 1.43 | 2.98 | |
| CH2 | 1.16 | 4.79 | 14.49 | 0.66 | 1.06 | 4.13 | 0.47 | 1.00 | 2.43 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 1.13 | 5.53 | 11.18 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 3.01 | 0.36 | 0.88 | 1.35 |
| CH4 | 1.07 | 4.63 | 7.06 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 1.75 | 0.37 | 0.55 | 0.65 | |
| CH5 | 1.67 | 5.90 | 7.55 | 0.84 | 1.67 | 1.77 | 0.57 | 0.89 | 0.85 | |
| CH1 | 2.39 | 4.18 | 14.61 | 1.07 | 2.78 | 4.73 | 0.82 | 1.63 | 2.65 | |
| CH2 | 1.51 | 4.17 | 12.04 | 0.73 | 2.86 | 3.57 | 0.50 | 1.17 | 2.11 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 1.32 | 2.37 | 7.56 | 0.71 | 1.55 | 2.27 | 0.31 | 0.76 | 1.16 |
| CH4 | 1.30 | 3.05 | 4.35 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 1.52 | 0.41 | 0.65 | 1.00 | |
| CH5 | 2.24 | 4.15 | 8.13 | 0.81 | 1.43 | 1.65 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 1.17 | |
| CH1 | 1.97 | 7.43 | 20.36 | 1.11 | 2.23 | 4.04 | 0.56 | 1.64 | 2.99 | |
| CH2 | 1.38 | 5.07 | 15.71 | 0.62 | 1.66 | 2.71 | 0.32 | 1.16 | 2.34 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 1.25 | 5.21 | 6.99 | 0.47 | 1.20 | 2.20 | 0.39 | 0.67 | 1.75 |
| CH4 | 1.13 | 2.82 | 6.56 | 0.48 | 0.82 | 1.33 | 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.68 | |
| CH5 | 1.77 | 4.61 | 13.20 | 1.00 | 1.61 | 1.81 | 0.71 | 1.06 | 0.85 | |
| CH1 | 2.06 | 6.87 | 17.54 | 0.87 | 2.87 | 4.90 | 0.69 | 1.32 | 2.97 | |
| CH2 | 1.32 | 4.18 | 12.66 | 0.38 | 1.90 | 2.90 | 0.40 | 0.83 | 1.85 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.11 | 2.76 | 7.95 | 0.42 | 1.61 | 2.17 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 1.20 |
| CH4 | 1.01 | 2.74 | 2.49 | 0.45 | 1.31 | 1.37 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 0.79 | |
| CH5 | 2.21 | 4.74 | 6.85 | 0.94 | 1.75 | 2.02 | 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| T=0.25 | T=0.5 | T=0.75 | ||||||||
| n | Heuristic | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 | R=0.25 | R=0.5 | R=0.75 |
| CH1 | 2.47 | 6.96 | 24.94 | 0.87 | 3.03 | 4.50 | 0.78 | 1.22 | 2.51 | |
| CH2 | 1.38 | 3.93 | 8.76 | 0.54 | 2.46 | 3.79 | 0.66 | 0.88 | 1.80 | |
| 30 | CH3 | 1.22 | 3.42 | 12.21 | 0.56 | 1.47 | 3.14 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 1.52 |
| CH4 | 0.91 | 4.07 | 10.30 | 0.69 | 1.51 | 1.66 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 1.28 | |
| CH5 | 1.73 | 4.18 | 14.58 | 1.19 | 1.42 | 1.33 | 0.65 | 0.92 | 1.23 | |
| CH1 | 1.71 | 7.57 | 19.56 | 0.94 | 1.86 | 4.27 | 0.64 | 1.43 | 2.98 | |
| CH2 | 1.16 | 4.79 | 14.49 | 0.66 | 1.06 | 4.13 | 0.47 | 1.00 | 2.43 | |
| 40 | CH3 | 1.13 | 5.53 | 11.18 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 3.01 | 0.36 | 0.88 | 1.35 |
| CH4 | 1.07 | 4.63 | 7.06 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 1.75 | 0.37 | 0.55 | 0.65 | |
| CH5 | 1.67 | 5.90 | 7.55 | 0.84 | 1.67 | 1.77 | 0.57 | 0.89 | 0.85 | |
| CH1 | 2.39 | 4.18 | 14.61 | 1.07 | 2.78 | 4.73 | 0.82 | 1.63 | 2.65 | |
| CH2 | 1.51 | 4.17 | 12.04 | 0.73 | 2.86 | 3.57 | 0.50 | 1.17 | 2.11 | |
| 50 | CH3 | 1.32 | 2.37 | 7.56 | 0.71 | 1.55 | 2.27 | 0.31 | 0.76 | 1.16 |
| CH4 | 1.30 | 3.05 | 4.35 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 1.52 | 0.41 | 0.65 | 1.00 | |
| CH5 | 2.24 | 4.15 | 8.13 | 0.81 | 1.43 | 1.65 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 1.17 | |
| CH1 | 1.97 | 7.43 | 20.36 | 1.11 | 2.23 | 4.04 | 0.56 | 1.64 | 2.99 | |
| CH2 | 1.38 | 5.07 | 15.71 | 0.62 | 1.66 | 2.71 | 0.32 | 1.16 | 2.34 | |
| 60 | CH3 | 1.25 | 5.21 | 6.99 | 0.47 | 1.20 | 2.20 | 0.39 | 0.67 | 1.75 |
| CH4 | 1.13 | 2.82 | 6.56 | 0.48 | 0.82 | 1.33 | 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.68 | |
| CH5 | 1.77 | 4.61 | 13.20 | 1.00 | 1.61 | 1.81 | 0.71 | 1.06 | 0.85 | |
| CH1 | 2.06 | 6.87 | 17.54 | 0.87 | 2.87 | 4.90 | 0.69 | 1.32 | 2.97 | |
| CH2 | 1.32 | 4.18 | 12.66 | 0.38 | 1.90 | 2.90 | 0.40 | 0.83 | 1.85 | |
| 70 | CH3 | 1.11 | 2.76 | 7.95 | 0.42 | 1.61 | 2.17 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 1.20 |
| CH4 | 1.01 | 2.74 | 2.49 | 0.45 | 1.31 | 1.37 | 0.41 | 0.78 | 0.79 | |
| CH5 | 2.21 | 4.74 | 6.85 | 0.94 | 1.75 | 2.02 | 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.98 |
| [1] |
Min Ji, Xinna Ye, Fangyao Qian, T.C.E. Cheng, Yiwei Jiang. Parallel-machine scheduling in shared manufacturing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020174 |
| [2] |
Onur Şimşek, O. Erhun Kundakcioglu. Cost of fairness in agent scheduling for contact centers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021001 |
| [3] |
Ying Lin, Qi Ye. Support vector machine classifiers by non-Euclidean margins. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2020, 3 (4) : 279-300. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020018 |
| [4] |
Tien-Yu Lin, Bhaba R. Sarker, Chien-Jui Lin. An optimal setup cost reduction and lot size for economic production quantity model with imperfect quality and quantity discounts. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 467-484. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020043 |
| [5] |
Hui Lv, Xing'an Wang. Dissipative control for uncertain singular markovian jump systems via hybrid impulsive control. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 127-142. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020020 |
| [6] |
Xuefeng Zhang, Yingbo Zhang. Fault-tolerant control against actuator failures for uncertain singular fractional order systems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 1-12. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020011 |
| [7] |
Guo Zhou, Yongquan Zhou, Ruxin Zhao. Hybrid social spider optimization algorithm with differential mutation operator for the job-shop scheduling problem. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 533-548. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019122 |
| [8] |
Kengo Nakai, Yoshitaka Saiki. Machine-learning construction of a model for a macroscopic fluid variable using the delay-coordinate of a scalar observable. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 1079-1092. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020352 |
| [9] |
Ivan Bailera, Joaquim Borges, Josep Rifà. On Hadamard full propelinear codes with associated group $ C_{2t}\times C_2 $. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2021, 15 (1) : 35-54. doi: 10.3934/amc.2020041 |
| [10] |
Nicolas Rougerie. On two properties of the Fisher information. Kinetic & Related Models, 2021, 14 (1) : 77-88. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020049 |
| [11] |
Yueh-Cheng Kuo, Huan-Chang Cheng, Jhih-You Syu, Shih-Feng Shieh. On the nearest stable $ 2\times 2 $ matrix, dedicated to Prof. Sze-Bi Hsu in appreciation of his inspiring ideas. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020358 |
| [12] |
Sze-Bi Hsu, Yu Jin. The dynamics of a two host-two virus system in a chemostat environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (1) : 415-441. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020298 |
| [13] |
Shoya Kawakami. Two notes on the O'Hara energies. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 953-970. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020384 |
| [14] |
Hua Qiu, Zheng-An Yao. The regularized Boussinesq equations with partial dissipations in dimension two. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1375-1393. doi: 10.3934/era.2020073 |
| [15] |
Huu-Quang Nguyen, Ya-Chi Chu, Ruey-Lin Sheu. On the convexity for the range set of two quadratic functions. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020 doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020169 |
| [16] |
Yukihiko Nakata. Existence of a period two solution of a delay differential equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 1103-1110. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020392 |
| [17] |
Cheng He, Changzheng Qu. Global weak solutions for the two-component Novikov equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1545-1562. doi: 10.3934/era.2020081 |
| [18] |
Manil T. Mohan. First order necessary conditions of optimality for the two dimensional tidal dynamics system. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020 doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020045 |
| [19] |
João Marcos do Ó, Bruno Ribeiro, Bernhard Ruf. Hamiltonian elliptic systems in dimension two with arbitrary and double exponential growth conditions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 277-296. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020138 |
| [20] |
Zhouchao Wei, Wei Zhang, Irene Moroz, Nikolay V. Kuznetsov. Codimension one and two bifurcations in Cattaneo-Christov heat flux model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020344 |
2019 Impact Factor: 1.366
Tools
Article outline
Figures and Tables
[Back to Top]