Scheduling optimization of manufacturing systems with no-wait constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No-wait scheduling problem refers to the set of problems in which a number of jobs are available for processing on a number of machines with the added constraint that there should be no waiting time between consecutive operations of the jobs. It is well-known that most of the no-wait scheduling problems are strongly NP-hard. Moreover, no-wait scheduling problems have numerous real-life applications. This thesis studies a wide range of no-wait scheduling problems, along with side constraints that make such problems more applicable. First, 2-machine no-wait flow shop problem is studied. Afterwards, setup times and single server constraints are added to this problem in order to make it more applicable. Then, job shop version of this problem is further researched. Analytical results for both of these problems are presented; moreover, efficient algorithms are developed and applied to large instances of these problems. Afterward, general no-wait flow shop problem (NWFS) is the focus of the thesis. First, the NWFS is studied; mathematical models as well as metaheuristics are developed for NWFS. Then, setup times are added to NWFS in order to make the problem more applicable. Finally, the case of sequence dependent setup times is further researched. Efficient algorithms are developed for both problems. Finally, no-wait job shop (NWJS) problem is studied. Literature has proposed different methods to solve NWJS; the most successful approaches decompose the problem into a timetabling sub-problem and a sequencing sub-problem. Different sequencing and timetabling algorithms are developed to solve NWJS. This thesis provides insight to several no-wait scheduling problems. A number of theorems are discussed and proved in order to find the optimum solution of no-wait problems with special characteristics. For the problems without such characteristics, mathematical models are developed. Metaheuristics are utilized to deal with large-instances of NP-hard problems. Computational results show that the developed methods in this thesis are very effective and efficient compared to the competitive methods available in the literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".