MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Reinforcement Learning with Recurrent Neural Networks for Optimal Scheduling of Flow-Shop Systems Under Uncertainty

2023· article· en· W4387914496 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Rangel-Martínez, Luis Ricardez‐Sandoval

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceJob shop schedulingScheduling (production processes)Flow shop schedulingArtificial neural networkTime horizonArtificial intelligenceScheduleNoveltyMathematical optimizationMachine learningIndustrial engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a methodology for the application of an intelligent agent for optimal scheduling of flow-shop manufacturing systems subject to uncertainty in processing times and demands. The agent is trained through a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithm referred to as Deep Recurrent Q-Learning (DRQN). The novelty of this work lies in the use of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) as the structure of the agent, never considered before for scheduling of chemical manufacturing plants. This network aims to identify correlations between consecutive events (time-series) which are useful for the decision-making process of the agent for solving flow-shop scheduling problems. A reward function is set to guide the agent to a) minimize the makespan of the process inside a horizon, b) satisfy the demands without overproducing products, and c) account for uncertainty in processing times. The results show that this modelling framework can produce an agent that is able to re-schedule operations online due to realization of uncertainty and without the need to solve additional (online) optimization 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 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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207