A Production Scheduling Framework for Reinforcement Learning Under Real-World Constraints

Felix Schelling; Jonathan Hoss; Noah Klarmann

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

A Production Scheduling Framework for Reinforcement Learning Under Real-World Constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A modular, event-driven simulation framework extends classical job-shop scheduling with transport, buffer, setup, breakdown, and stochastic constraints, and a proof-of-concept RL agent trained in it consistently beats two priority…

desk verdict A useful modular RL scheduling environment that overclaims its empirical validation; the architecture is worth engaging, the proof of concept is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13566 v2 pith:4JYIUHHK submitted 2025-06-16 cs.LG cs.AI

Jonathan Hoss , Felix Schelling , Noah Klarmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI MSC 90B3568T05

keywords jobshopschedulingreinforcementlearningdiscrete-eventsimulationreal-worldconstraintsmakespanprioritydispatchingrulesmulti-objectiveoptimization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a modular simulation framework that extends the classical job-shop scheduling problem with real-world constraints: transport logistics, limited buffers, sequence-dependent setup times, probabilistic machine breakdowns, and stochastic processing times. The framework uses an event-driven, stateless state machine with a plug-in architecture and a standardized interface for reinforcement-learning agents, and it includes a domain-specific language for defining problem instances and configuring observation, action, and reward spaces. The authors demonstrate, as a proof of concept, that a reinforcement-learning agent trained in this framework achieves makespans closer to known lower bounds than two priority dispatching rules on classical benchmarks, and consistently improves on those heuristics when transport and buffer constraints are added. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper directly addresses the gap between idealized scheduling benchmarks and the dynamic conditions of actual production environments, offering a potential common platform for training and comparing adaptive scheduling policies.

What carries the argument

The framework's core is the event-driven state machine: at every simulation step, a set of scheduled events (agent-triggered and autonomous, such as breakdowns) is sorted by a priority function and applied sequentially via the atomic transition function T(s,e), with breakdown events always taking precedence. The state machine is decomposed into sub-state machines for machines, transport units, and buffers, and a plug-in architecture (with transformations Pi: S×E×Θi → S×Ξi) adds breakdown, setup-time, stochasticity, and energy-consumption behavior. The middleware's observation, action, and reward factories map the internal state and event stream into a standardized RL interface, while a DSL defines problem instances and configuration in a reusable form.

What would settle it

Run the same scenarios and RL-versus-heuristic comparisons on a validated commercial discrete-event simulator or an instrumented real shop floor; if the RL agent's makespan advantage over the two priority dispatching rules shrinks or reverses when the same transport and buffer constraints are active, the framework's claim to faithfully capture real-world constraints is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gap between classical JSSP and real-world production complexity can be bridged by a modular, event-driven simulation environment in which machines, transport units, and buffers are represented as sub-state machines and synchronized by a priority-ordered event queue. The proof of concept shows that an RL agent trained with a minimal observation space, a binary action space, and a makespan-based reward can, across all tested problem instances, produce schedules whose makespan is closer to the lower bound than the shortest-processing-time and most-work-remaining heuristics, and that this advantage persists when buffer and transport constraints are added. The authors therefore claim the framework is a general-purpose platform for developing and benchmarking RL-based scheduling solutions under realistic dynamic conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the event-driven state machine, with its fixed priority ordering and sequential application of atomic events, faithfully reproduces real shop-floor behavior—especially that every state at a given simulation time fully encodes the system history, so decisions do not need memory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A reinforcement-learning agent can learn dispatch and transport decisions that account for buffer capacities and transport delays, not only machine sequencing.
The plug-in architecture gives a template for adding new constraints, reward signals, and observation designs without rewriting the state machine.
The standardized RL interface lets different agents be compared on the same realistic instances, supporting reproducible benchmarks.
Because the framework natively supports multiple reward signals, it provides a base for developing standardized multi-objective scheduling benchmarks.
Open-source release means the environment can be audited, extended, and connected to real production data by other groups.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The proof of concept exercises only the transport and buffer plug-ins; a natural extension is to run the same agent with breakdown, setup-time, and stochastic-processing plug-ins enabled to see whether the advantage over priority rules survives all constraints at once.
The stateless Markovian assumption is convenient for RL but can silently become partially observable once breakdowns and setup times are active; augmenting observations with residual repair times or setup states may be necessary to preserve performance.
If the environment's fidelity holds, the framework could shift common practice from instance-specific custom simulators to a shared, reproducible testbed, making RL-versus-heuristic comparisons in scheduling research more cumulative.
A testable next step is to check whether the reported advantage over the two heuristics is stable across random seeds and lower-bound sources.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

JobShopLab is a genuine attempt to give the RL-scheduling community one modular Gymnasium environment that covers transport, buffers, setups, breakdowns, stochasticity, and multi-objective rewards in a single tool. That combination is new, and shipping the code is real evidence that the framework exists beyond the page. The architecture — sub-state machines for machines, transport, and buffers, a plug-in system, DSL configuration, and middleware factories — is a sensible way to organize the problem and should make extension and comparison easier for people who want it.

The proof of concept, though, is thinner than the claims built on top of it. The experiments report single runs without seeds, error bars, statistical tests, or published hyperparameters. Only transport and buffer constraints are actually exercised in the second experiment; breakdowns, setup times, stochastic processing, and multi-objective rewards are implemented but not demonstrated. The claim that the RL agent "consistently achieves a makespan closer to the lower bound" may be true for the runs shown, but there is no evidence it is stable across seeds or configurations. That means the empirical section should be read as a smoke test, not a benchmark.

On the Markov/statelessness concern: I think the paper's assertion is defensible for the plug-ins actually implemented, because the state representation includes the information those plug-ins use. The framework does not appear to model age-dependent deterioration or history-dependent breakdowns, so the stress-test's hypothetical counterexample identifies something the paper does not claim to support rather than a contradiction inside the engine. The real problem is the framing. Saying the framework "bridges the gap" to real-world production is an overreach when nothing validates the simulator against an actual shopfloor or against an established discrete-event simulator. That is a scale-of-claim issue, not a fatal flaw in the core mechanism.

I would send this to peer review. A serious referee can push for a stronger empirical section and a more careful statement of what the framework does and does not validate, while still giving credit for a release that fills a real gap in tooling. The paper as written is not ready to be accepted on its current evidence, but the underlying framework deserves engagement.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents JobShopLab, a modular open-source framework for training and evaluating reinforcement learning agents on job shop scheduling problems extended with real-world constraints such as transport logistics, buffer management, setup times, machine breakdowns, stochastic processing times, and multi-objective optimization. The authors formalize the environment as an event-driven state machine with priority-ordered event processing (Eqs. 4-11), introduce a plug-in architecture and domain-specific languages for problem instances and configuration, and report a proof of concept in which a PPO agent outperforms the SPT and MWKR dispatching rules on several classical and transport/buffer-constrained benchmark instances. The central claim is that the framework bridges the gap between the classical JSSP and real-world production complexity, enabling the development and evaluation of RL agents under realistic conditions.

Significance. If fully validated, JobShopLab would fill a genuine gap: existing frameworks reviewed in Table I cover only subsets of the constraints the authors target, and the framework's modular DSL, standardized Gymnasium interface, plug-in design, and open-source release are concrete strengths that would benefit the RL-scheduling community. The core idea of a configurable, extensible simulator with plug-ins for breakdowns, setups, stochasticity, and consumption is sound and useful. However, the current evidence does not yet substantiate the central claims of real-world fidelity and consistent superiority of the RL agent over heuristics; the paper needs a substantially stronger validation section to support the conclusions as written. The released code at https://github.com/proto-lab-ro/jobshoplab and the explicit design for flexible observation, action, and reward spaces are valuable contributions that should be credited in any revision.

major comments (4)

[Section III-B, Eqs. (4)-(11), Fig. 2] The assertion that the framework is "stateless" and that "every state fully encodes the production system at a specific simulation time, independent of history" is not demonstrated and is in tension with the framework's own extensions. Section III-A identifies machine wear as a source of stochastic processing times and models breakdowns probabilistically; if the breakdown hazard or processing-time distribution depends on age or wear, then the transitions are not a function of the discrete state set shown in Figure 2 (idle/setup/processing/down, etc.). No formal proof of the Markov property, no wear/age counters in the state representation, and no empirical check against a stateful simulator are provided. The authors should either restrict the stateless claim to the actually implemented state variables, extend the state to include wear/age, or validate history-independence empirically.
[Section IV-B, Figs. 4-5] The proof of concept reports results on only five classical instances (la10, la16, ta01, ta02, ta41) and on an unspecified set of extended instances, with no seeds, repeated runs, error bars, or statistical tests. The claims that the RL agent "consistently achieves a makespan closer to the lower bound" (Fig. 4) and "consistently outperforms both PDRs" (Fig. 5) are therefore supported by at most one trajectory per instance. Please report multiple seeds, variance or confidence intervals, the numerical values behind the figures, and the full training configuration (PPO hyperparameters, number of training steps, observation and action settings).
[Section IV-B, second experiment] The second experiment exercises only buffer and transport constraints. The paper's central claim that the framework models real-world constraints including machine breakdowns, setup times, and stochastic processing times (Section III-A) is not tested: no experiments with the breakdown, setup-time, or stochasticity plug-ins are reported, and the advertised multi-objective reward support is not demonstrated. The conclusion that the framework "successfully models real-world constraints" in general is therefore not supported by the provided evidence. Either add experiments or explicit validation for each advertised extension, or scope the claims to the constraints actually evaluated.
[Section IV-B, Fig. 5] Figure 5's x-axis appears to concatenate instance labels ("ft06-tft10-tla01-tla02-...") and the figure does not report the number of instances, per-instance values, or variability. This makes it impossible for a reader to assess how many problems were tested and how robust the improvement is. Provide a clear table with instance names, makespan values for each method, and per-seed statistics, or state explicitly that the figure aggregates over a named set of instances.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-B] The phrase "to ensure casual consistency" should read "causal consistency".
[Section III-A] The real-world constraints (transport, buffers, setups, breakdowns, stochasticity) are described verbally; providing the concrete parameters or distributions (e.g., breakdown probability model, setup-time matrix, buffer capacity limits) would improve reproducibility.
[Section IV-B, Fig. 4] The y-axis labels "LB/Ours", "LB/SPT", and "LB/MWKR" are not defined in the text; please state explicitly that higher values indicate makespan closer to the lower bound.
[Table I] The criteria in Table I are evaluated on a qualitative scale with no rubric; defining what counts as "Partial" versus "Yes" would strengthen the framework comparison.
[Abstract] The phrase "a lack of a comprehensive, general-purpose frameworks" should be "a lack of comprehensive, general-purpose frameworks" or "a lack of a comprehensive, general-purpose framework".
[Section IV-A] No example of the DSL is shown; a short sample problem-instance file and a sample configuration file would help readers understand the claimed customizability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework's equations are constructive definitions and the RL-vs-heuristic comparison is an empirical benchmark, not a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain contains no step that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The state-machine formalism (Eqs. 3-11) defines atomic transition functions, event priority sorting, and sequential event application; these are constructive simulation semantics, not predictions derived from fitted constants. The proof-of-concept trains a PPO agent in the environment and compares its makespan ratio to the known lower bound (Fig. 4) and its relative improvement over SPT/MWKR (Fig. 5). Those are empirical measurements against external benchmarks and heuristics, so the central claim that the RL agent outperforms heuristics is not forced by the framework's design. The only self-citation (Ref. [10], co-authored by Klarmann) appears in the literature review as background motivation for including setup times and intralogistics; it is not load-bearing for any result and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The assertion that every state 'fully encodes the production system ... independent of history' is an unvalidated modeling assumption, and the proof of concept exercises only transport and buffer constraints, leaving breakdowns and stochastic processing untested; however, an unsupported or under-supported assumption is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity. Nothing in the paper fits a parameter to a dataset and then re-predicts that same dataset, nor renames a known empirical pattern as a new derivation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on environment fidelity and on the unstated configuration of the proof-of-concept experiments. The ledger lists the hand-set parameters and modeling assumptions whose values or justification are absent from the paper. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

PPO hyperparameters
Learning rate, network architecture, batch size, and random seed are not reported, yet the PPO agent's performance depends on these unstated choices.
Environmental stochasticity settings
Breakdown probabilities, processing time distributions, buffer capacities, and transport delays for the extended experiments are not given, which prevents exact reproduction of Figure 5.
Seven-feature observation set
The compact observation space is hand-picked and not ablated or justified; it shapes agent behavior and may influence the comparison with heuristics.
Reward function details
The 'minimize makespan' reward factory is described only qualitatively; density, shaping, and scaling are not specified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The event-driven state machine with priority ordering and sequential event application faithfully represents real-world shopfloor behavior.
Section III-B: the realism claim rests on this modeling assumption, yet no validation against a real production system or established simulator is provided.
domain assumption The stateless Markovian property holds for the simulated production system.
Section III-B asserts every state fully encodes the system independent of history; real shopfloors often have history-dependent behavior such as machine degradation.
standard math Sequential application of sorted events is equivalent to correct concurrent event processing.
Section III-B, Equations 8-11 assume a total priority order resolves simultaneous events without deadlock or state inconsistency, but this is not proven or formally verified.
domain assumption SPT and MWKR are appropriate baseline heuristics for both classical and extended JSSP with transport and buffer constraints.
Section IV-B compares only against these two dispatching rules without adapting them to transport or buffer limits, which may disadvantage the heuristics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Production Scheduling Framework for Reinforcement Learning Under Real-World Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4JYIUHHK

@misc{pith2026250613566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Production Scheduling Framework for Reinforcement Learning Under Real-World Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4JYIUHHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13566}
}

read the original abstract

The classical Job Shop Scheduling Problem (JSSP) focuses on optimizing makespan under deterministic constraints. Real-world production environments introduce additional complexities that cause traditional scheduling approaches to be less effective. Reinforcement learning (RL) holds potential in addressing these challenges, as it allows agents to learn adaptive scheduling strategies. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive, general-purpose frameworks for effectively training and evaluating RL agents under real-world constraints. To address this gap, we propose a modular framework that extends classical JSSP formulations by incorporating key real-world constraints inherent to the shopfloor, including transport logistics, buffer management, machine breakdowns, setup times, and stochastic processing conditions, while also supporting multi-objective optimization. The framework is a customizable solution that offers flexibility in defining problem instances and configuring simulation parameters, enabling adaptation to diverse production scenarios. A standardized interface ensures compatibility with various RL approaches, providing a robust environment for training RL agents and facilitating the standardized comparison of different scheduling methods under dynamic and uncertain conditions. We release JobShopLab as an open-source tool for both research and industrial applications, accessible at: https://github.com/proto-lab-ro/jobshoplab

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13566 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Framework architecture • The state machine serves as the central discrete simulation component, managing the states of the production environment. • The middleware enables communication between the state machine and external components, such as the RL agent, managing tasks like data preprocessing and event triggering. It includes the observation factory, action factory, and reward factory, which define the RL agent… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Performance comparison of PDRs and RL agent in classical JSSP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance improvements of RL agents over selected PDRs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

M. L. Pinedo, Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems , 6th ed. Springer Nature, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Jodlbauer, Produktionsoptimierung: wertschaffende sowie kunde- norientierte Planung und Steuerung , 2nd ed

H. Jodlbauer, Produktionsoptimierung: wertschaffende sowie kunde- norientierte Planung und Steuerung , 2nd ed. SpringerWienNewYork, 2008

work page 2008
[3]

Review of job shop scheduling research and its new perspectives under Industry 4.0,

J. Zhang, G. Ding, Y . Zou, S. Qin, and J. Fu, “Review of job shop scheduling research and its new perspectives under Industry 4.0,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 30, pp. 1809–1830, Aug. 2017

work page 2017
[4]

R. S. Sutton and A. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 2nd ed. Cambridge, Ma ; London: The MIT Press, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

A Reinforcement Learning Environment For Job-Shop Scheduling,

P. Tassel, M. Gebser, and K. Schekotihin, “A Reinforcement Learning Environment For Job-Shop Scheduling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03760, Apr. 2021

arXiv 2021
[6]

Application of Machine Learning and Rule Scheduling in a Job-Shop Production Control System,

Y . Zhao and H. Zhang, “Application of Machine Learning and Rule Scheduling in a Job-Shop Production Control System,” International Journal of Simulation Modelling , vol. 20, pp. 410–421, Jun. 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Reinforcement Learning of Dispatching Strategies for Large-Scale Industrial Scheduling,

P. Tassel, B. Kov ´acs, M. Gebser, K. Schekotihin, W. Kohlenbrein, and P. Schrott-Kostwein, “Reinforcement Learning of Dispatching Strategies for Large-Scale Industrial Scheduling,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 32, pp. 638–646, Jun. 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Optimization of job shop scheduling problem based on deep reinforcement learning,

D. Qiao, L. Duan, H. Li, and Y . Xiao, “Optimization of job shop scheduling problem based on deep reinforcement learning,” Evolu- tionary Intelligence, vol. 17, pp. 371–383, Oct. 2023

work page 2023

Show all 27 references

[9]

Reinforcement learning for an intelligent and autonomous production control of complex job-shops under time constraints,

T. Altenm ¨uller, T. St ¨uker, B. Waschneck, A. Kuhnle, and G. Lanza, “Reinforcement learning for an intelligent and autonomous production control of complex job-shops under time constraints,” Production Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 319–328, Jun. 2020

2020
[10]

Optimizing Job Shop Scheduling in the Furniture Industry: A Reinforcement Learning Approach Considering Machine Setup, Batch Variability, and Intralo- gistics,

M. Schneevogt, K. Binninger, and N. Klarmann, “Optimizing Job Shop Scheduling in the Furniture Industry: A Reinforcement Learning Approach Considering Machine Setup, Batch Variability, and Intralo- gistics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11820 , Sep. 2024

2024 arXiv
[11]

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling with Random Job Arrival,

J. Chang, D. Yu, Y . Hu, W. He, and H. Yu, “Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling with Random Job Arrival,” Processes, vol. 10, Apr. 2022

2022
[12]

Deep reinforcement learning for dynamic scheduling of a flexible job shop,

R. Liu, R. Piplani, and C. Toro, “Deep reinforcement learning for dynamic scheduling of a flexible job shop,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 60, pp. 1–21, Apr. 2022

2022
[13]

A deep reinforcement learn- ing model for dynamic job-shop scheduling problem with uncertain processing time,

X. Wu, X. Yan, D. Guan, and M. Wei, “A deep reinforcement learn- ing model for dynamic job-shop scheduling problem with uncertain processing time,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 131, May 2024

2024
[14]

Real-time data-driven dy- namic scheduling for flexible job shop with insufficient transportation resources using hybrid deep Q network,

Y . Li, W. Gu, M. Yuan, and Y . Tang, “Real-time data-driven dy- namic scheduling for flexible job shop with insufficient transportation resources using hybrid deep Q network,” Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 74, Apr. 2022

2022
[15]

Deep reinforcement learning based AGVs real-time scheduling with mixed rule for flexible shop floor in industry 4.0,

H. Hu, X. Jia, Q. He, S. Fu, and K. Liu, “Deep reinforcement learning based AGVs real-time scheduling with mixed rule for flexible shop floor in industry 4.0,” Computers & Industrial Engineering , vol. 149, Nov. 2020

2020
[16]

Reinforcement learning for sustainability enhancement of production lines,

A. Loffredo, M. C. May, A. Matta, and G. Lanza, “Reinforcement learning for sustainability enhancement of production lines,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 35, Nov. 2023

2023
[17]

Efficient Multi-Objective Optimization on Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling Using Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,

Z. Wu, H. Fan, Y . Sun, and M. Peng, “Efficient Multi-Objective Optimization on Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling Using Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach,” Processes, vol. 11, Jul. 2023

2023
[18]

A robust optimal scheduling system based on multi-performance driving for complex manufacturing systems,

Q. Yu, Y . Zhang, H. Zhao, T. Yu, and L. Li, “A robust optimal scheduling system based on multi-performance driving for complex manufacturing systems,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, Oct. 2023

2023
[19]

Job shop smart manufactur- ing scheduling by deep reinforcement learning,

J. C. Serrano-Ruiz, J. Mula, and R. Poler, “Job shop smart manufactur- ing scheduling by deep reinforcement learning,” Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 38, Mar. 2024

2024
[20]

Learning to Schedule Job- Shop Problems via Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning,

Z. Liao, Q. Li, Y . Dai, and Z. Zhang, “Learning to Schedule Job- Shop Problems via Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning,” IEEE In- ternational Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , Oct. 2022

2022
[21]

De- signing an adaptive production control system using reinforcement learning,

A. Kuhnle, J.-P. Kaiser, F. Theiß, N. Stricker, and G. Lanza, “De- signing an adaptive production control system using reinforcement learning,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 32, pp. 855–876, Jul. 2020

2020
[22]

Job Shop Scheduling Benchmark: Environments and Instances for Learning and Non-learning Methods,

R. Reijnen, Van Straaten, Z. Bukhsh, and Y . Zhang, “Job Shop Scheduling Benchmark: Environments and Instances for Learning and Non-learning Methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12794, Aug. 2023

2023 arXiv
[23]

Gymnasium: A Standard Interface for Reinforce- ment Learning Environments,

M. Towers et al., “Gymnasium: A Standard Interface for Reinforce- ment Learning Environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17032, Nov. 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Probabilistic Learning Combinations of Local Job-Shop Scheduling Rules

H. Fischer, G.L. Thompson, “Probabilistic Learning Combinations of Local Job-Shop Scheduling Rules.”, Industrial Scheduling, Muth and G. L. Thompson(Eds.), pp. 225-251, 1963

1963
[25]

S. A. Lawrence, ”Resource constrained project scheduling: An experi- mental investigation of heuristic scheduling techniques (supplement),” Graduate School Ind. Admin., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Tech. Rep., 1984

1984
[26]

Benchmarks for Basic Scheduling Problems,

E. E. Taillard, “Benchmarks for Basic Scheduling Problems,” Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research , vol. 2, pp. 278-285. 1993

1993
[27]

Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learning Implementations,

A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learning Implementations,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, pp. 1–8, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. L. Pinedo, Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems , 6th ed. Springer Nature, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Jodlbauer, Produktionsoptimierung: wertschaffende sowie kunde- norientierte Planung und Steuerung , 2nd ed

H. Jodlbauer, Produktionsoptimierung: wertschaffende sowie kunde- norientierte Planung und Steuerung , 2nd ed. SpringerWienNewYork, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Review of job shop scheduling research and its new perspectives under Industry 4.0,

J. Zhang, G. Ding, Y . Zou, S. Qin, and J. Fu, “Review of job shop scheduling research and its new perspectives under Industry 4.0,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 30, pp. 1809–1830, Aug. 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

R. S. Sutton and A. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 2nd ed. Cambridge, Ma ; London: The MIT Press, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

A Reinforcement Learning Environment For Job-Shop Scheduling,

P. Tassel, M. Gebser, and K. Schekotihin, “A Reinforcement Learning Environment For Job-Shop Scheduling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03760, Apr. 2021

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Application of Machine Learning and Rule Scheduling in a Job-Shop Production Control System,

Y . Zhao and H. Zhang, “Application of Machine Learning and Rule Scheduling in a Job-Shop Production Control System,” International Journal of Simulation Modelling , vol. 20, pp. 410–421, Jun. 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Reinforcement Learning of Dispatching Strategies for Large-Scale Industrial Scheduling,

P. Tassel, B. Kov ´acs, M. Gebser, K. Schekotihin, W. Kohlenbrein, and P. Schrott-Kostwein, “Reinforcement Learning of Dispatching Strategies for Large-Scale Industrial Scheduling,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 32, pp. 638–646, Jun. 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Optimization of job shop scheduling problem based on deep reinforcement learning,

D. Qiao, L. Duan, H. Li, and Y . Xiao, “Optimization of job shop scheduling problem based on deep reinforcement learning,” Evolu- tionary Intelligence, vol. 17, pp. 371–383, Oct. 2023

work page 2023