Back to all available

Design and optimization of human resource scheduling strategies using intelligent evolutionary algorithms

human-computer-interaction
algorithms-and-analysis-of-algorithms
artificial-intelligence
social-computing
sentiment-analysis

Abstract

To address the limitations of traditional algorithms in human resource scheduling optimization under multiple constraints—such as slow convergence and low constraint satisfaction rates—this study proposes a hybrid intelligent algorithm (ADE-ACO) integrating adaptive differential evolution (ADE) and ant colony optimization (ACO). First, a multi-objective optimization model for human resource scheduling is constructed. Then, an improved adaptive differential evolution algorithm is designed, which dynamically adjusts the scaling factor and crossover probability to effectively mitigate the issues of local optima stagnation and premature convergence in conventional methods. Furthermore, by incorporating an adaptive pheromone update mechanism and a multi-attribute dynamic candidate list strategy, the algorithm's global search capability is significantly enhanced. Experimental validation on the PSPLIB benchmark dataset demonstrates that compared to traditional baseline algorithms including standard differential evolution (SDE) and ant colony optimization (ACO), the proposed ADE-ACO algorithm achieves a 32% significant reduction in makespan (p<0.01), improves resource utilization to 92.3%, while maintaining over 95% constraint satisfaction rate, conclusively proving its superiority in both convergence performance and scheduling quality.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].