Multi-decision points model to solve coupled-task scheduling problem with heterogeneous multi-AGV in manufacturing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated guided vehicle (AGV) is widely used in automated manufacturing systems as a material handling tool. Although the task scheduling problem with isomorphic AGV has remained a very active research field through the years, too little work has been devoted to the task scheduling problems with heterogeneous AGVs. A coupled task with heterogeneous AGVs is a complex task that needs the cooperation of more than one type of AGVs. In this paper, a manufacturing system with two types of AGVs and three types of tasks is studied. To solve the coupled task scheduling problem with heterogeneous AGVs in this manufacturing system, we introduce two new methods based on the established mathematical model, namely, the decoupled scheduling strategy and coupled scheduling strategy with multi-decision model. The decoupled scheduling strategy is widely used in coupled task scheduling problems. However, there are some situations that the decoupled scheduling strategy cannot solve the problem well. To overcome the problem, the multi-decision point model solves the coupled task scheduling problem without decomposition. In order to ensure the searching speed and searching accuracy, a novel hybrid heuristic algorithm based on simulated annealing algorithm and tabu search algorithm is developed. The simulation experiment results show the proposed coupled scheduling algorithm has priority in coupled task scheduling problems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".