Scheduling parallel extrusion lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the problem of scheduling jobs on parallel plastic extrusion lines where each line is composed of one or more than one extruder. Although there are some similarities between the introduced problem and the non-identical parallel machines scheduling problems with sequence-dependent setup times, limited additional resources and machine eligibility restrictions, the problem considered in this paper is a generalization of the parallel machine scheduling problem. This is because in parallel machines scheduling each job requires only one machine but in our case some jobs require more than one machine. Thus, our problem reduces to the parallel machine scheduling problem if all jobs require only one machine. This paper describes the problem of scheduling parallel extrusion lines, its industrial context, and develops a mixed-linear formulation to model the problem. This formulation allowed solving instances of up to 15 jobs. In addition, we developed four metaheuristics: a simulated annealing algorithm, a tabu search heuristic, a genetic algorithm, and a greedy randomized adaptive search procedure. These metaheuristics can be used to solve real-life instances of the problem. A numerical experiment shows that the proposed metaheuristics produce excellent solutions. Some of the proposed simulated annealing adaptations and of the tabu search heuristics obtained solutions with less than 2% deviation from the optimum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".