Trade-offs between optimal and robust scheduling in one-stage production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given stochastic disturbances, such as variation in processing times, robust scheduling is recommended over optimal scheduling for production. Different from optimal scheduling that seeks an optimal solution to a key performance indicator (KPI), which relates to the average of a KPI, robust scheduling is to minimize the largest deviation from the optimum for the worst-case scenarios, which relates to the variance of a KPI. However, minimizing the variance does not necessarily optimize the average of a KPI. As one of the fundamental KPIs in production scheduling, total completion time ( TCT ) drives many other KPIs, such as average flow time, waiting time, due dates, and length of stay. Stochastic processing times and NP -hardness to minimize the variance of TCT , i.e., min ( VTCT ) , are two challenges in production scheduling. To investigate the trade-offs between optimal and robust scheduling, we apply the differentiation method to analyze the first and second moments of TCT . In our approach, we use three statistical measures for processing times, which are the lower bound, the expected value, and the upper bound. We also use three terms for sequencing, which are x ( 1 ) the processing time of the initial job, x ( i ) the processing time of a job in the current position i of a sequence, and x ′ ( i ) the difference of processing times between two adjacent jobs. Applying the three measures for processing times to each of the three independent terms for sequencing, we generate 27 = 3 · 3 · 3 sequences to analyze the dynamics of VTCT . Through numerical analysis in our case studies, we show that our sequencing scheme can generate optimal solutions to min ( TCT ) , and solid variation ranges of VTCT . Consequently, we can not only balance the trade-offs between min ( TCT ) and min ( VTCT ) , but also analyze the trade-offs between optimal scheduling focusing on the first-moment of a KPI and robust scheduling focusing on the second moment. Moreover, our analysis approach using the differentiation method is unique for production scheduling, which enables us to develop analytical methods and heuristics for balancing trade-offs between optimal and robust scheduling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".