# Embedded PSO for Solving FJSP on Embedded Environment (Industry 4.0 Era)
## 5 Proposed Technique: Embedded Two-Level PSO-FJSP
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline Instance & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Basic PSO} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{One-Level PSO [32]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{E2L-PSO without Reduction} \\  & \(I=1454\)\(S=55\) & \(I=1454\)\(S=55\) & \(\mathbf{I_{1}}=64\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=50\)\(\mathbf{I_{2}}=5\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=5\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(MS\) & CPU Time & \(MS\) & CPU Time & \(MS\) & CPU Time \\ \hline \(4\times 5\) & 12 & 16.08 & 11 & 7.2 & 11 & 4.14 \\ \(8\times 8\) & 19 & 40.51 & 16 & 36.71 & 14 & 9.54 \\ \(10\times 10\) & 12 & 71.06 & 10 & 79.61 & 7 & 11.40 \\ MK01 & 44 & 64.60 & 40 & 122.17 & 39 & 25.84 \\ MK02 & 33 & 83.98 & 29 & 133.38 & 27 & 24.44 \\ MK03 & 204 & 826.5 & 204 & 579.69 & 204 & 81.52 \\ MK04 & 69 & 174 & 62 & 217.33 & 60 & 49.59 \\ MK05 & 177 & 275.95 & 173 & 303.14 & 173 & 62.51 \\ MK06 & 78 & 658.2 & 64 & 607.62 & 60 & 144.20 \\ MK07 & 148 & 264.86 & 144 & 310.27 & 139 & 49.42 \\ MK08 & 523 & 569.88 & 523 & 1107.04 & 523 & 196.27 \\ MK09 & 341 & 891.18 & 309 & 1290.77 & 307 & 197.86 \\ MK10 & 252 & 974.16 & 205 & 1300.75 & 205 & 258.07 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison 2 between the three developed PSO variants on Raspberry Pi B+. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline Instance & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Basic PSO} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{One-Level PSO [32]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{E2L-PSO without Reduction} \\  & \(I=1454\)\(S=55\) & \(I=1454\)\(S=55\) & \(\mathbf{I_{1}}=64\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=50\)\(\mathbf{I_{2}}=5\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=5\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(MS\) &



#### 6.2.2 Experiment #2 (Adaptive E2L-PSO on Raspberry Pi B+)

To better visualize the results, we increase the number of visited points to 3,000,000 (\(I_{1}=100\)\(S_{2}=200\)\(I_{2}=10\)\(S_{2}=10\)). Table 9 presents the simulation results of the E2L-PSO without particle reduction on Raspberry Pi B+ card. In this table, the number of visited solutions is fixed at 3,000,000 points (we widen the search space) to better compare the quality of the results. This table is used only for comparison reasons. In this table, we can see that our algorithm reaches the lower bound values in three instances (bold values) compared to values presented in Table 4. For the rest of the instances, E2L-PSO gives comparable results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline Instance & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Basic PSO} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{One-Level PSO [32]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{E2L-PSO without Reduction} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(I=100\)\(S=50\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(I=100\)\(S=50\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\mathbf{I_{1}}=20\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=10\)\(\mathbf{I_{2}}=5\)\(\mathbf{S_{2}}=5\)} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(MS\) & CPU Time & \(MS\) & CPU Time & \(MS\) & CPU Time \\ \hline \(4\times 5\) & 12 & 4.25 & 12 & 1.87 & 11 & 1.30 \\ \(8\times 8\) & 22 & 12.56 & 18 & 12.31 & 16 & 3.12 \\ \(10\times 10\) & 12 & 27.06 & 12 & 19.56 & 9 & 3.25 \\ MK01 & 44 & 23.68 & 42 & 50.93 & 39 & 6.31 \\ MK02 & 33 & 2.06 & 30 & 48 & 29 & 8.75 \\ MK03 & 204 & 206.37 & 204 & 194.34 & 204 & 27 \\ MK04 & 72 & 49.93 & 64 & 69.06 & 62 & 17.5 \\ MK05 & 179 & 95 & 174 & 123.12 & 173 & 31.93 \\ MK06 & 70 & 207.31 & 64 & 203.25 & 62 & 43.68 \\ MK07 & 151 & 110.80 & 144 & 127 & 139 & 12.56 \\ MK08 & 523 & 188 & 523 & 386.68 & 523 & 62.50 \\ MK09 & 341 & 312.99 & 309 & 520.81 & 309 & 69.87 \\ MK10 & 254 & 288.31 & 205 & 490.12 & 205 & 91.25 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison 3 between the three developed PSO variants on STM32 F407 VGT6.