MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403099496 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2024.0603

Domain-Independent Dynamic Programming and Constraint Programming Approaches for Assembly Line Balancing Problems with Setups

2024· article· en· W4403099496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jiachen Zhang, J. Christopher Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAssembly Line Balancing Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint programmingComputer scienceDynamic programmingDomain (mathematical analysis)Assembly lineConstraint logic programmingMathematical optimizationConstraint satisfactionReactive programmingConstraint (computer-aided design)Concurrent constraint logic programmingInductive programmingLine (geometry)AlgorithmProgramming paradigmProgramming languageStochastic programmingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose domain-independent dynamic programming (DIDP) and constraint programming (CP) models to exactly solve type 1 and type 2 assembly line balancing problem with sequence-dependent setup times (SUALBPs). The goal is to assign tasks to assembly stations and to sequence these tasks within each station while satisfying precedence relations specified between a subset of task pairs. Each task has a given processing time and a setup time dependent on the previous task on the station to which the task is assigned. The sum of the processing and setup times of tasks assigned to each station constitute the station time and the maximum station time is called the cycle time. For the type 1 SUALBP (SUALBP-1), the objective is to minimize the number of stations, given a maximum cycle time. For the type 2 SUALBP (SUALBP-2), the objective is to minimize the cycle time, given the number of stations. On a set of diverse SUALBP instances, experimental results show that our approaches significantly outperform the state-of-the-art mixed integer programming models for SUALBP-1. For SUALBP-2, the DIDP model outperforms the state-of-the-art exact approach based on logic-based Benders decomposition. By closing 76 open instances for SUALBP-2, our results demonstrate the promise of DIDP for solving complex planning and scheduling problems. History: Accepted by Pascal Van Hentenryck, Area Editor for Computational Modeling: Methods and Analysis. Funding: This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2020-04039]. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2024.0603 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2024.0603 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAssembly Line Balancing OptimizationFrench-language works237,207