MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366528567 · doi:10.1080/23302674.2023.2200888

Joint parallel-machine scheduling and maintenance planning optimisation with deterioration, unexpected breakdowns, and condition-based maintenance

2023· article· en· W4366528567 on OpenAlexafffund
Mani Sharifi, Mageed Ghaleb, Sharareh Taghipour

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Systems Science Operations & Logistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability engineeringMathematical optimizationMaintenance actionsOptimal maintenanceScheduling (production processes)Reliability (semiconductor)Integer programmingEnergy consumptionProduction (economics)Preventive maintenanceMarkov chainEngineeringAlgorithmMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The joint optimisation of production scheduling and maintenance planning can significantly decrease production interruptions (or stoppages) and, simultaneously, improve production stability and enhance the reliability and availability of equipment and machines. This paper studies the joint optimisation of production schedules and CBM plans in a parallel-machine production setting. The machines are subject to deterioration, unexpected breakdowns, and deterioration-based failures. The reliability of the machines is modelled as a multi-state system in which two deterioration thresholds are introduced to initiate maintenance and prevent deterioration-based failures. An integrated optimisation model is proposed to solve this new problem. The proposed model employs Markov chains to formulate machines' reliability and a matrix-based approach to estimate the expected processing times, energy consumption, and maintenance costs. Then, a mixed-integer programming model is proposed that jointly optimises production schedules and maintenance plans by minimising a weighted sum objective function that includes expected lateness, maintenance, and energy consumption costs. A genetic algorithm (GA) is used to solve the new problem, and extensive computational experiments are performed to test the performance of the proposed GA. The results show the superiority of the proposed GA for all the test problems compared to two well-known metaheuristics.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Systems Science Operations & LogisticsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207