MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802796399

Solution Strategies in Short-term Scheduling for Multitasking Multipurpose Plants

2018· dissertation· en· W2802796399 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lee Do Yeon

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHuman multitaskingTerm (time)Scheduling (production processes)Computer scienceOperations researchOperations managementEngineeringBiologyNeurosciencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis addresses challenges in short-term scheduling of multipurpose facilities using mathematical optimization. Such approach involves the formulation of a predictive model and an objective function, and the development of a solution strategy around such scheduling model formulation in order to obtain an operating schedule that achieves certain objectives, such as maximization of throughput or minimization of makespan. There are many choices that must be made in these aspects of short-term scheduling, and these choices often lead to a trade-off between the solution quality and computational time. This thesis presents two studies analyzing the quality-CPU time trade-off in two major aspects: time representations in model formulation, and the strategy for handling multiple conflicting objectives. The ultimate goal is to develop bi-objective short-term scheduling approaches to tackle industrial-sized problems for multitasking multipurpose plants that are computationally inexpensive, but provide practical schedules with a good balance between throughput and makespan. \n \nThe first study addresses the first aspect of interest and compares two different time representation approaches: discrete-time and continuous-time approaches. This comparison is made considering maximization of throughput as the sole objective. We show that, for the modeling framework implemented in this work, the selected discrete-time formulation typically obtained higher quality solutions, and required less time to solve compared to the selected continuous-time formulation, as the continuous-time formulation exhibited detrimental trade-off between computational time and solution quality. We also show that within the scope of this study, non-uniform discretization schemes typically yielded solutions of similar quality compared to a fine uniform discretization scheme, but required only a fraction of the computational time. \n \nThe second study builds on the first study and develops a strategy around an efficient non-uniform discretization approach to handle the conflicting objectives of throughput maximization and makespan minimization, focusing on a priori multi-objective methods. Two main contributions are presented in this regard. The first contribution is to propose a priori bi-objective methods based on the hybridization of compromise programming and the U+03B5-constraint method. The second is to present short-term operational objective functions, that can be used within short-term scheduling to optimize desired long term objectives of maximizing throughput and minimizing makespan. Two numerical case studies, one in a semiconductor processing plant and an analytical services facility, are presented using a rolling horizon framework, which demonstrate the potential for the proposed methods to improve solution quality over a traditional a priori approach

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207