MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106081565 · doi:10.1080/07408170309342349

Optimization-based manufacturing scheduling with multiple resources, setup requirements, and transfer lots

2003· article· en· W2106081565 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Chen, Peter B. Luh, Lakshman S. Thakur, Jack Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueIIE Transactions · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
FundersUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of California, Santa CruzNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubgradient methodMathematical optimizationScheduleComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Job shop schedulingInteger programmingHeuristicLinear programmingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing demand for on-time delivery of products and low production cost is forcing manufacturers to seek effective schedules to coordinate machines and operators so as to reduce costs associated with labor, setup, inventory, and unhappy customers. This paper presents the modeling and resolution of a job shop scheduling system for J. M. Products Inc., whose manufacturing is characterized by the need to simultaneously consider machines and operators, machines requiring significant setup times, operators of different capabilities, and lots dividable into transfer lots. These characteristics are typical for many manufacturers, difficult to handle, and have not been adequately addressed in the literature. In our study, an integer optimization formulation with a separable structure is developed where both machines and operators are modeled as resources with finite capacities. Setups are explicitly considered following our previous work with additional penalties on excessive setups. By analyzing transfer lot dynamics, transfer lots are modeled by using linear inequalities. The objective is to maximize on-time delivery of products, reduce inventory, and reduce the number of setups. By relaxing resource capacity constraints and portions of precedence constraints, the problem is decomposed into smaller subproblems that are effectively solved by using a novel dynamic programming procedure. The multipliers are updated using the recently developed surrogate subgradient method. A heuristic is then used to obtain a feasible schedule based on subproblem solutions. Numerical testing shows that the method generates high quality schedules in a timely fashion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIE TransactionsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207