The multi-factory two-stage assembly scheduling problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A new kind of collaborative manufacturing in the supply chain is investigated. • The objective is to minimize the makespan of the entire process. • A mixed integer linear programming model is developed to deal with small-size instances. • A branch and bound algorithm and five constructive heuristics are proposed. • Computational experiments demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed methods. The recent notable focus on distributed production management in academic and industrial contexts has underscored the importance of scheduling across multiple factories. Accordingly, this study investigates a new multi-factory configuration in which non-identical factories produce different components of a final product in the first stage. Each factory is considered as a classical flow-shop, which can manufacture a unique component. These components are assembled into final products in the assembly factory, which is located in the second stage. Unlike other distributed scheduling problems, to determine a united production sequence in such a system, there is no need to find a suitable factory to assign a job since each factory is qualified for a particular task. In real-world applications, these systems encounter challenges that span from information architectures and negotiation mechanisms to the development of scheduling algorithms. The objective of this research is to schedule the jobs in each factory to minimize the makespan of the entire process. For this purpose, a mixed-integer programming model is developed to deal with small-size instances. Then, the lower bound is derived and incorporated to develop a branch and bound method. Furthermore, to deal with larger instances, five heuristic methods are developed, and the worst-case analysis is carried out. Computational experiments are conducted for different test classes to compare and to highlight the performance of the proposed solution procedures.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".