MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159071455 · doi:10.1002/nav.21994

Dynamically scheduling and maintaining a flexible server

2021· article· en· W3159071455 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceMarkov decision processMarkov chainMathematical optimizationSemiconductor device fabricationScheduleFair-share schedulingJob shop schedulingDynamic priority schedulingOperations researchDistributed computingReal-time computingMarkov processMathematicsEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deciding how to jointly schedule jobs and perform preventive maintenance is a fundamental problem in flexible manufacturing systems, particularly those arising in semiconductor manufacturing. At the same time, past work in this area shows that, even when there is only one station and one type of job, identifying policies that minimize the amount of work‐in‐process (WIP) is a difficult problem. In this paper, we study a single‐station version of this problem with an arbitrary number of job classes, with the objective of minimizing average maintenance costs plus the weighted average amount of WIP. We identify conditions under which it suffices to schedule jobs according to both a server‐state‐dependent version of the cμ ‐rule, and a static cμ ‐rule where the average service rates are used. One of these conditions states that the ratio between the service rates should remain constant as the server deteriorates. When this assumption does not hold, scheduling with the cμ ‐rule can in fact lead to an unstable system; we illustrate this using a simple example. On the other hand, we also present numerical evidence that cμ ‐based scheduling performs well compared to other scheduling rules, and relative to a policy based on solving a Markov decision process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.276 · 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