Customer order scheduling with job-based processing on a single-machine to minimize the total completion time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study considers a customer order scheduling (COS) problem in which each customer requests a variety of products (jobs) processed on a single flexible machine, such as the computer numerical control (CNC) machine. A sequence-independent setup for the machine is needed before processing each product. All products in a customer order are delivered to the customer when they are processed. The product ordered by a customer and completed as the last product in the order defines the customer order’s completion time. We aim to find the optimal schedule of the customer orders and the products to minimize the customer orders’ total completion time. We have studied this customer order scheduling problem with a job-based processing approach in which the same products from different customer orders form a product lot and are processed successively without being intermingled with other products. We have developed two mixed-integer linear programming models capable of solving the small and medium-sized problem instances optimally and a heuristic algorithm for large-sized problem instances. Our empirical study results show that our proposed tabu search algorithm provides optimal or near-optimal solutions in a very short time. We have also compared the job-based and order-based processing approaches for both setup and no-setup cases and observed that the job-based processing approach yields better results when jobs have setup times.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".