Scheduling in-house transport vehicles to feed parts to automotive assembly lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to exorbitant product variety, very limited space, and other factors, organizing efficient and timely deliveries of parts and subassemblies to final assembly within the factory is one of the most pressing problems of modern mixed-model assembly production. Many automobile producers have implemented the so-called “supermarket” concept to transfer material to the assembly line frequently and in small lots. Supermarkets are decentralized logistics areas on the shop floor where parts are intermediately stored for nearby assembly cells, to be ferried there by small transport vehicles (called tow trains or tuggers). This paper tackles the operational problem of drawing up schedules for these tow trains, such that the assembly line never starves for parts while also minimizing in-process inventory, thus satisfying just-in-time goals. We prove strong NP-completeness of the problem and present exact and heuristic solution methods. In a computational study, the procedures are shown to perform very well, solving realistic instances to (near-)optimality in a matter of minutes, clearly outperforming the simple cyclic schedules commonly used in industrial practice. We also provide some managerial insight into the right degree of automation for such a part feeding system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".