MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131433807 · doi:10.1109/tsm.2002.801379

Optimal scheduling techniques for cluster tools with process-module and transport-module residency constraints

2002· article· en· W2131433807 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessHeuristicsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Process (computing)Turnaround timeMathematical optimizationLinear programmingBenchmark (surveying)Distributed computingAlgorithmMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses two scheduling techniques for dual-arm cluster tools that address both process-module and transport-module residency constraints and throughput requirements. The first technique is the extension of our previous work that only addressed process-module residency constraints. For cases with long process times, this technique can take a long time to find the solution and is not practical. Hence, we use this algorithm mainly as a benchmark for comparison. The second technique that uses a linear programming technique with use of several heuristics can find the optimal solution very efficiently. Analytical and experimental analysis of this technique shows the correctness, completeness and efficiency of this technique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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