Assembly line balancing with cobots: An extensive review and critiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industry 4.0 encourages industries to digitise the manufacturing system to facilitate human-robot collaboration (HRC) to foster efficiency, agility and resilience. This cutting-edge technology strikes a balance between fully automated and manual operations to maximise the benefits of both humans and assistant robots (known as cobots) working together on complicated and prone-to-hazardous tasks in a collaborative manner in an assembly system. However, the introduction of HRC poses a significant challenge for assembly line balancing since, besides typical assigning tasks to workstations, the other two important decisions must also be made regarding equipping workstations with appropriate cobots as well as scheduling collaborative tasks for workers and cobots. In this article, the cobot assembly line balancing problem (CoALBP), which just initially emerged a few years ago, is thoroughly reviewed. The 4M1E (i.e., man, machine, material, method and environment) framework is applied for categorising the problem to make the review process more effective. All of the articles reviewed are compared, and their key distinct features are summarised. Finally, guidelines for additional studies on the CoALBP are offered.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".