2005
DOI: 10.1109/tase.2005.849085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relative Value Function Approximation for the Capacitated Re-Entrant Line Scheduling Problem

Abstract: Abstract-The problem addressed in this work is that of determining how to allocate the workstation processing and buffering capacity in a capacitated re-entrant line to the job instances competing for it, in order to maximize its long-run / steady-state throughput, while maintaining the logical correctness of the underlying material flow, i.e., deadlock-free operations. An approximation scheme for the optimal policy that is based on Neuro-Dynamic Programming theory is proposed, and its performance is assessed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(33 reference statements)
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Condition 3 introduces the "hold-while-waiting" effect in the considered resource allocation which is at the base of the considered Figure 4: An event-driven framework for the RAS Supervisory Control problem deadlock problems. 4 Condition 4 applies primarily to complex process flows that involve parallelization, and implies that the logic coordinating the execution of the various process threads does not "confound" enacted sub-processes belonging to different process instantiations. Finally, in order to facilitate the subsequent discussion on the complexity of the posed problems and the proposed solutions, we also introduce the quantity |Φ| ≡ |R| + | n j=1 S j | + m i=1 C i , which defines the size of the RAS Φ.…”
Section: Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Condition 3 introduces the "hold-while-waiting" effect in the considered resource allocation which is at the base of the considered Figure 4: An event-driven framework for the RAS Supervisory Control problem deadlock problems. 4 Condition 4 applies primarily to complex process flows that involve parallelization, and implies that the logic coordinating the execution of the various process threads does not "confound" enacted sub-processes belonging to different process instantiations. Finally, in order to facilitate the subsequent discussion on the complexity of the posed problems and the proposed solutions, we also introduce the quantity |Φ| ≡ |R| + | n j=1 S j | + m i=1 C i , which defines the size of the RAS Φ.…”
Section: Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(iii) Finally, in Phase III, the set of admissible actions is provided to the performance-oriented component of the RAS supervisor in order to select the one that will be communicated eventually to the RAS environment, in a way that observes some performance considerations. In addition to this basic functionality, the RAS controller should be able to respond to the various contingencies taking place in the RAS domain, by (i) appropriately updating the RAS configuration database, and (ii) revising 4 As demonstrated by the examples presented in Figures 1 and 2, this "hold-while-waiting" effect frequently results from the need to physically buffer the various process instances at any single point in time, i.e., parts processed in a flexibly automated production system or vehicles in an AGV network are physical entities and they always need to be accommodated somewhere during their sojourn through the system. It must be noticed, however, that, while providing the necessary specificity for the underlying resource allocation dynamics, the aforestated assumptions do not compromise the modeling power of our framework, since one can capture any additional resource allocation dynamics by augmenting the specification of process Π j .…”
Section: Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 From a more practical standpoint, the developments presented in this work have been motivated by the need to address the scheduling (especially the throughput maximization) problem of sequential resource allocation systems (RAS) that are controlled for deadlock-freedom, liveness and reversibility according to the supervisory control theory presented in [4], [5]. In [6], [4], it has been shown that this scheduling problem can be modeled as an average-reward Markov Decision Process (MDP), which is well-defined and effectively solvable due to the structural properties that are established by the aforementioned liveness-enforcing supervision (LES). On the other hand, the solvability of this MDP is practically limited by the state-space explosion that is typical for the considered RAS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature contains two major approximation schemes for computing approximated value functions (Choi 2004). These are (i) the look-up table method (Bertsekas andRoy 1996), and (ii) parametric representation methods (Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis 1996, Tsitsiklis and Roy 1996, Roy 1998, Farias 2002, Choi and Reveliotis 2005. Look-up table methods essentially aggregate the underlying state space to a number of aggregated components on the basis of a preselected set of features maintaining one value for each aggregated component.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of particular interest is the work that focuses on the average reward MDP problem for capacitated re-entrant lines (Choi and Reveliotis 2005). More specifically, the work of Choi and Reveliotis (2005) proposed a feature-based linear parametric approximation method that utilises a set of good feature functions in terms of (i) minimisation of some distance metric characterising the quality of the approximation and (ii) the corresponding greedy policy that tends to maximise throughput. Furthermore, this work showed that the proposed approximation framework effectively integrates past results relevant to the logical control of these environments by performing numerical experiments with some prototypical problems exemplifying the CRL scheduling problem.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%