MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138932436 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2020.1015

Solving the Type-2 Assembly Line Balancing with Setups Using Logic-Based Benders Decomposition

2021· article· en· W3138932436 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Zohali, Bahman Naderi, Vahid Roshanaei

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAssembly Line Balancing Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenders' decompositionInteger programmingPreprocessorMathematical optimizationTask (project management)Integer (computer science)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)DecompositionAlgorithmSequence (biology)Upper and lower boundsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We solve the type-2 assembly line balancing problem in the presence of sequence-dependent setup times, denoted SUALBP-2. The problem consists of a set of tasks of a product, requiring to be processed in different assembly stations. Each task has a definite processing and setup times. The magnitude of setup times for each task is dependent on the processing sequence within each station. Processing and setup times of tasks assigned to each station constitute the station time. The goal is to minimize the cycle time (the maximum station time) by optimally (i) assigning tasks to assembly stations and (ii) sequencing these tasks within each station. To solve this challenging optimization problem, we first improve upon an existing mixed-integer programming (MIP) model by our proposed lower and upper bounds. These enhancements reduce the MIP model’s (solved CPLEX) average optimality gap from 41.61% to 20.77% on extra-large instances of the problem. To further overcome the intractability of the MIP model, we develop an exact logic-based Benders decomposition (LBBD) algorithm. The LBBD algorithm effectively incorporates a novel two-phase solution approach, the lower and upper bounds, various preprocessing techniques, relaxations, and valid inequalities. Using existing benchmarks in the literature, we demonstrate that our LBBD algorithm finds integer feasible solutions for 100% of all 788 instances (64% for the MIP), verifies optimality for 47% of instances (37% for the MIP), and achieves an average optimality gap of 5.04% (7.72% for the MIP obtained over 64% solved small instances). The LBBD algorithm also significantly reduces the computational time required to solve these benchmarks. Summary of Contribution: Assembly line balancing plays a crucial role in productivity enhancement in manufacturing and service companies. A balanced assembly line ensures higher throughput rate and fairer distribution of workload among assembly stations (workers). Assembly line balancing, in its simplest form, is one of the most challenging combinatorial optimization problems. Its complexity is further intensified when the sequence of executing tasks assigned to each station influences the magnitude of the setup performed between any two successive tasks. In view of such complexity, most assembly line balancing problems have been solved by randomized search techniques that do not provide any guarantee on the quality of solutions found. The mission of this paper is to understand whether there is any special structure within the existing mathematical models in the literature and, if so, exploit them toward developing computationally efficient exact techniques that can provide guarantee on the quality of solutions. Indeed, we demonstrate that such a special mathematical structure exists and we thus develop the first decomposition technique in form of a logic-based Benders decomposition (LBBD) to efficiently solve the type-2 sequence-dependent assembly line balancing problem. Specifically, we show that our LBBD significantly reduces cycle time and the time required for decision making. Our LBBD generalizes the scope of exact techniques for decision-making beyond the assembly line problems and is extendable to many other shop scheduling problems that arrange their stations (machines) serially and there are sequence-dependent setup times among their tasks.

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)0.002
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAssembly Line Balancing OptimizationFrench-language works237,207