Planning Production and Equipment Qualification under High Process Flexibility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present and solve a joint production and qualification planning problem for a manufacturing environment with high process flexibility. Various factors contribute to the complexity of the problem, one of which is product‐machine mapping: Each machine may be qualified to produce multiple products and each product can be produced on multiple machines. To meet a build‐plan, the factory needs to not only determine a multi‐machine multi‐product production schedule that accounts for sequence‐dependent setup time, but also a qualification schedule which prescribes whether and when a machine should undergo a qualification process such that it is ready to produce a product. We consider processing characteristics including sequence‐dependent setups, job splitting, and machine eligibility in addition to qualification. We formulate the mathematical model as an MILP problem that minimizes the total weighted delay. In this study, we describe two heuristic solution approaches developed for this complex decision setting and the application at Intel. We compare our approach with Intel's current approach which is a spreadsheet‐based manual approach that relies on the experience of the factory planner. The results indicate that our approach, which we call the GS approach, dominates in terms of minimizing the delay. Our approach performs well when capacity is tight and additional qualifications are considered while the Intel approach may perform better on reducing the setup and qualification time in certain problem instances, particularly those with loose capacity. As a result, an integrated approach which selects the better solution from both approaches is proposed, which shows significant reduction over the current approach in both the weighted delay and the setup and qualification time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it