Solving a flow shop scheduling problem with missing operations in an Industry 4.0 production environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industry 4.0 is a modern approach that aims at enhancing the connectivity between the different stages of the production process and the requirements of consumers. This paper addresses a relevant problem for both Industry 4.0 and flow shop literature: the missing operations flow shop scheduling problem. In general, in order to reduce the computational effort required to solve flow shop scheduling problems only permutation schedules (PFS) are considered, i.e., the same job sequence is used for all the machines involved. However, considering only PFS is not a constraint that is based on the real-world conditions of the industrial environments, and it is only a simplification strategy used frequently in the literature. Moreover, non-permutation (NPFS) orderings may be used for most of the real flow shop systems, i.e., different job schedules can be used for different machines in the production line, since NPFS solutions usually outperform the PFS ones. In this work, a novel mathematical formulation to minimize total tardiness and a resolution method, which considers both PFS and (the more computationally expensive) NPFS solutions, are presented to solve the flow shop scheduling problem with missing operations. The solution approach has two stages. First, a Genetic Algorithm, which only considers PFS solutions, is applied to solve the scheduling problem. The resulting solution is then improved in the second stage by means of a Simulated Annealing algorithm that expands the search space by considering NPFS solutions. The experimental tests were performed on a set of instances considering varying proportions of missing operations, as it is usual in the Industry 4.0 production environment. The results show that NPFS solutions clearly outperform PFS solutions for this problem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".