Optimizing Car Resequencing on Mixed-Model Assembly Lines: Algorithm Development and Deployment

Andreas Karrenbauer; Bernd Kuhn; Kurt Mehlhorn; Paolo Luigi Rinaldi

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 15 references

Optimizing Car Resequencing on Mixed-Model Assembly Lines: Algorithm Development and Deployment

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deployed resequencing algorithm lifts assessed paint batch size by 30 percent and cuts changeovers by 23 percent.

desk verdict Real deployment, honest limitations, but the headline paint-shop gains rest on an unvalidated simulator that was also used to tune the key parameter; the measured changeover data is more modest. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17422 v1 pith:NP3UKY3I submitted 2025-07-23 eess.SY cs.SY

Andreas Karrenbauer , Bernd Kuhn , Kurt Mehlhorn , Paolo Luigi Rinaldi This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords mixed-modelassemblylinecarresequencingselectivitybanksvirtualpaintcolorchangeoverbatchpaintingmulti-objectiveoptimizationbuilt-to-date

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 an online control algorithm for the resequencing buffer between a car factory's body shop and paint shop, where cars wait in parallel FIFO lanes. The algorithm makes three coupled decisions for every incoming car: which lane it enters, which car leaves next, and which compatible customer order is assigned to a car as it leaves. The paper's central claim is that, deployed in the Saarlouis plant, this scheme raised the assessed average batch size (aABS) of colors leaving the Body Buffer by about 30 percent over the old control software, reducing color changeovers in the Paint Shop by about 23 percent. It also narrowed the spread of cars planned for a single date by 10 percent and kept the sequence-number distribution close to the original plan. A sympathetic reader would care because the result is measured in live production rather than simulation, and it addresses the long-standing gap between multi-objective resequencing theory and practice.

What carries the argument

The central object is virtual resequencing by substitution, a four-step filter that picks which order a leaving car will realize. The filter is embedded in two other online routines: lane dequeuing virtually assigns each head-of-lane car its best substitute and releases the car paired with the best order, breaking ties by longest time in the buffer; lane enqueuing brute-force simulates pushing the incoming car into each available lane, drains the buffer virtually, and chooses the lane whose resulting sequence has the fewest constraint violations, using the ratio $\mathrm{LDS}/\mathrm{ABS}$ as a tie-breaker. The quality measure that carries the argument is the assessed average batch size (aABS), computed by a reverse-engineered simulator of the paint shop's undocumented legacy controls for the sealer, primer, and two paint lanes. The mechanism's key insight is that color differentiation in fixed-size windows matters more than raw batch length: a sequence that alternates two colors has $\mathrm{ABS}=1$ but lets the primer buffer feed both lanes without changeovers.

What would settle it

Compare the simulator's predicted sequence of colors entering the two paint lanes with the actual logged color sequence from the paint shop for the same Body-Buffer output over several weeks; if the real average batch size at the paint lanes does not track the simulated aABS, the reported 30 percent improvement is an artifact of the simulator, not a real reduction in color changeovers. The raw event logs needed for this comparison already exist since the API logs every request and response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that virtual resequencing — reassigning a different compatible order to a partially built car at the moment it leaves the Body Buffer — is the decisive lever, and that a simple "last $k$ colors" rule makes it effective. Substitution first filters orders to those with the fewest constraint violations, then to the earliest due dates, then to orders in the last $k$ colors seen leaving the buffer, and finally to the lowest sequence number. Contrary to the intuition that the algorithm should maximize the raw average batch size at the buffer exit, the authors find that $k=3$ performs best on the assessed average batch size at the actual paint lanes: it creates large windows containing few colors, which the paint shop's six-lane primer buffer can split across the two paint lanes with few changeovers. In the four-week comparison, the mean daily aABS of sequences leaving the Body Buffer rose from 4.58 to 5.71, a 24.7 percent improvement by the authors' computation and about 30 percent as reported by plant operators, corresponding to a 23 percent reduction in color changeovers; the worsening of LDS-based sequence-number measures was much smaller in the new period, and the index width of cars planned for a given date decreased by 10 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reverse-engineered simulator of the paint shop's internal buffers faithfully reproduces the undocumented legacy control; all batch-size improvements are measured through that simulator, and the paper offers no quantitative validation that the simulator's predicted paint-lane batches match real paint-lane events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the measured improvement is real, the same three-decision scheme can be ported to any mixed-model plant with parallel-lane buffers once a simulator of its downstream paint logic is built, since the algorithm consumes only online event data and outputs lane choices.
The empirically chosen parameter $k=3$ implies that the algorithm deliberately sacrifices raw batch length at the buffer exit to create low color differentiation in 50-car windows, so future implementations should tune $k$ against the downstream buffer's number of lanes rather than against the exit average batch size.
A 30 percent improvement in assessed average batch size corresponds to roughly 23 percent fewer color changeovers, which lowers cleaning costs, operator workload, and the environmental impact of paint-line rinsing.
Narrowing the index width of same-day cars by 10 percent increases the probability that cars planned for a date reach the assembly line close together, reducing delivery delays and just-in-time supply mismatches.
Because constraints are the first filter in substitution and the first tie-break in lane enqueuing, satisfying plant rules is not traded off against batch size or delivery spread; the priority order makes constraint satisfaction the dominant objective.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: the optimal $k$ should scale with the number of parallel lanes in the buffer just before the paint lanes, because that buffer is what splits few-color windows into lane feeds; running the same substitution filter with $k$ equal to one plus lane count at another plant would probe this.
The plant-reported 30 percent improvement exceeding the authors' 24.7 percent computation suggests either the simulator is conservative or the comparison periods differ in order mix; a longer observation window that controls for color-mix changes would separate the algorithm's effect from seasonal demand shifts.
The method could be extended by replacing the reverse-engineered paint-shop simulator with an online-learned predictor of paint-lane batching, which would let the lane-enqueuing tie-breaker use the true assessed batch size instead of the cheaper exit-sequence proxy.
Because substitution changes which order rides on a physical car, the algorithm also changes supply consumption; a natural next step is to couple the sequence-number-preservation objective with actual just-in-time part inventory signals rather than the original build sequence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The one thing to know: this is a genuine deployment paper with real event-log data, and the new algorithmic twist—substitution restricted to the last k colors, brute-force lane enqueuing with an LDS/ABS tie-break—is plausible and interesting. But the headline paint-shop improvement is not as solid as the abstract suggests, because the aABS KPI comes from a reverse-engineered simulator that is also used to pick k. The measured changeover-per-car data, which does not depend on the simulator, shows a smaller 19.7% improvement.

What is actually new: a real-plant deployment of a multi-objective resequencing algorithm at Ford Saarlouis, with 52,973 logged events over 8 weeks, an open-source API, and a before/after comparison. That is rare in this literature. The paper is also unusually transparent about its limitations: it states the legacy buffer code is not fully documented, that constraint violations rely on informal operator feedback, and that data cannot be shared. The statistical work on the sequence-number indices (orthogonal regression, slopes) is reasonable.

The soft spot is real and not minor. The aABS is defined as the output of a simulator of the Paint Shop's internal buffers, which the authors built because the legacy control was undocumented. They use that same simulator to choose k=3 on a historical sequence and then to compute the 24.7% aABS improvement. The abstract and conclusion quote a 30% improvement from operator reports and derive the 23% changeover reduction as 1 - 1/1.3. That is not the same as measuring 23% fewer changeovers. The directly counted CPC (changeovers per car leaving the Body Buffer) is 19.7% lower in Pnew, and that is the most trustworthy number in the paper. The simulator has no quantitative validation beyond 'verified with aggregated numbers,' so a systematic bias would inflate both the tuning criterion and the reported gain.

That said, the direction of the effect is supported by the measured CPC and by the index-width regression (10% narrower). The constraints claim rests on operator feedback, which the authors admit. The paper's central argument—that the algorithm helps in practice—holds in the sense that the measured signals point the same way, but the magnitude of the paint-shop benefit is not independently established.

Who this is for: production researchers working on car sequencing, selectivity banks, or virtual resequencing will get real value, mostly because of the deployed case study and the honest account of engineering constraints. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push for a simulator validation section (e.g., comparing simulated lane assignments or batch sizes against logged paint-lane behavior) and for reporting the measured CPC as the primary paint KPI. I'd say: send it to review, with the expectation of a major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the mixed-model assembly line resequencing problem at the Ford Saarlouis plant. It proposes an online algorithm that controls Body Buffer enqueuing, lane dequeuing, and order substitution so as to jointly minimize constraint violations, increase paint-shop color batch sizes, preserve sequence-number sortedness, and keep same-build-date cars close together. The authors report a 24.7% increase in the simulated 'assessed Average Batch Size' (aABS), an operator-reported 30% improvement, a 19.7% reduction in color changeovers per car in sequences leaving the Body Buffer, and a 10% reduction in the index width of same-date cars, based on 52,973 logged events over four working weeks before and after deployment.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims hold, this is a valuable real-world validation of MMAL resequencing algorithms: it ships a deployed open-source implementation, uses logged production event data, applies several statistical tests, and reports improvements on multiple KPIs. The measured CPC reduction (Table 2) and index-width reduction (Figure 12) are directly observable and plausible, and the authors are candid about the eight-week observation window and the lack of access to constraint-violation data. The main weakness is that the headline paint-shop aABS improvement is computed by a reverse-engineered simulator that is not quantitatively validated and that was also used to select the key parameter k; the magnitude of the central claim is therefore not yet independently established.

major comments (4)

[Sections 3.1.1, 3.2.6, and 4.1] The aABS is defined solely as the output of a reverse-engineered Paint Shop simulator, described in Section 3.1.1 as operating under legacy code that is 'not fully documented.' The only validation statement is that predictions were 'verified' with aggregated numbers, but no quantitative comparison is reported. The same simulator is used in Section 3.2.6 to select k=3 by maximizing aABS on historical data and in Section 4.1 to compute the 24.7% improvement and Figure 10. Consequently, the magnitude of the headline paint-shop improvement is partly determined by the fitting target. Please provide a holdout validation of the simulator against data not used for tuning, including predicted versus observed paint-lane batch sizes or changeover counts, and report the actual paint-shop changeovers if available. If that is not possible, the abstract and conclusion should clearly state that the aABS and the associated 23% changeover reduction are simulated quantities rather than measured plant performance.
[Section 4.1, Table 2] The directly measured CPC improvement is 19.7%, but it is reported only as pooled totals over the two periods, without a per-day distribution, a significance test, or a discussion of changes in order mix. The entering-Body-Buffer CPC is actually higher in Pnew (0.218) than in Pold (0.204), so the leaving-Body-Buffer reduction may partly reflect a change in input complexity rather than the algorithm's effect. Please report per-day CPC statistics and a paired test, and address whether color-mix or order-mix changes confound the comparison.
[Section 4.1, orthogonal regression] The orthogonal regression for Pnew (slope 2.4±0.8, intercept −5±4, p=0.049) is used to quantify the aABS improvement, but a slope far above 1 with a negative intercept is not a transparent measure of improvement, and the correlation coefficient of 0.47 is modest. Please explain what this regression is intended to establish, show the corresponding regression for Pold, and report a more direct paired comparison of daily aABS values rather than relying on a regression that appears to be driven by a small number of points.
[Section 5 and Abstract] The conclusion states that the algorithm 'increased the assessed average batch size (aABS) of the sequence leaving the Body Buffer by 30%, which reduced the number of color changeovers in the Paint Shop.' Table 2, however, counts changeovers in the sequence leaving the Body Buffer, not in the Paint Shop; paint-shop changeovers are only modeled by the simulator. The causal chain from aABS to actual paint-shop changeover reduction is therefore asserted rather than measured. Please either provide paint-lane-level changeover counts or temper the conclusion to distinguish measured Body-Buffer effects from simulated Paint-Shop effects.

minor comments (7)

[Section 3.2.4] The word 'dequque' in the description of the lane-enqueuing simulation should be 'dequeue'.
[Table 3] The table header contains 'standard erorr' and 'std of avg'; the first should be 'standard error' and the second should be clarified as standard error of the mean.
[Section 1] In the Introduction, 'engine, breaks, interior' should read 'engine, brakes, interior'.
[Section 3.2.6] The sentence 'Does this not this suggest to use k = 1?' contains a typo and should read 'Does this not suggest using k = 1?'
[Section 4.1] The sentence 'In Table 1 and Figure 10 we present the mean values of the daily aABSs across the two periods Pold and Pnew., which are the periods...' has an extra period after 'Pnew'; the punctuation should be corrected.
[Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.5] The paper uses two different simulators: the Paint Shop simulator of Section 3.1.1 and the partial Body Buffer simulator of Section 3.2.5. The terminology could be confusing; please define both explicitly and consistently, for example by naming them 'Paint Shop simulator' and 'Body Buffer simulator' at first use.
[Figure 10] The caption and text refer to 'red bins' and 'blue bins,' but the figure as rendered in the manuscript appears to be grayscale; please use distinct patterns or colors that are robust to grayscale printing, or add a legend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline batch-size improvement is externally attributed to plant operators, direct CPC and index-width measurements are independent of the paint-shop simulator, and parameter k is evaluated on a separate period from its tuning.

full rationale

The paper's color-batching claim relies on the assessed Average Batch Size (aABS), which is the output of the authors' reverse-engineered Paint Shop simulator (Section 3.1.1). The substitution parameter k is selected by maximizing aABS on a historical 23,000-car sequence using that same simulator (Section 3.2.6), and the 24.7% aABS improvement in Section 4.1 is computed with the same simulator. This creates a potential in-sample dependence: the KPI is defined by the same model used for tuning, and the simulator is not quantitatively validated against the undocumented legacy code. However, this is a validation/robustness risk, not a circular reduction in the sense of this review. The paper does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction: k is a free parameter, and the reported aABS improvement is measured on a separate four-week deployment period, not on the training sequence. The headline 'about 30%' improvement is explicitly attributed to plant operators' reporting ('the plant operators reported an improvement of about 30%'), an external source independent of the authors' simulator. The directly counted changeover-per-car (CPC) data in Table 2 show a 19.7% improvement that requires no simulator. The 23% changeover reduction is derived arithmetically from the 30% batch-size increase (1 - 1/1.3), which is a mathematical identity, not a circular definition. The companion-paper citation [5] is explicitly stated to have little direct impact on the implemented algorithm ('our theoretical results therefore had little direct impact on the implemented algorithm'), so no load-bearing self-citation exists. The index-width and LDS measures are computed directly from raw sequence logs and are independent of the paint-shop model. The main weakness is the missing quantitative simulator validation, which is a correctness concern, not circularity. Therefore the derivation is self-contained apart from that validation gap, and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central KPI (aABS) is defined through a self-built simulator, the tuning parameter k is fitted on historical data using that same simulator, and the comparison periods are assumed comparable without a control group. These are the main premises that the empirical claims rest on.

free parameters (2)

k (number of last colors considered in substitution) = 3
Chosen empirically by simulating k in {0,...,5} on a real input sequence of 23000 cars and measuring ABS/aABS (Section 3.2.6); it directly determines the substitution rule and thus the deployed behavior.
Paint Shop simulator internal parameters = not disclosed
The simulator used for aABS is reverse-engineered from undocumented legacy code (Section 3.1.1); its parameters for buffer lanes, processing times, and repaint handling are not reported, yet the central KPI depends on them.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Buffers consist of parallel FIFO lanes.
Introduction and Section 3.2.1 assume the Body Buffer and Sequence Buffer operate as parallel FIFO lanes; the algorithm's enqueue/dequeue model depends on this.
domain assumption The reverse-engineered Paint Shop simulator faithfully replicates the real Paint Shop including the legacy buffer control.
Section 3.1.1: aABS is computed by this simulator; the evaluation and the k-selection depend on it, but no quantitative validation of the simulator is reported.
domain assumption The sequence ABS after the Body Buffer is statistically significantly correlated with the aABS in the Paint Shop.
Section 3.2.4 states this correlation exists; the enqueuing tie-breaker relies on ABS as a proxy, but the correlation is not reported numerically.
domain assumption Compatibility between partially built cars and orders is determined by features fixed at that stage (e.g., body type).
Section 3.2.1 introduces substitution and the matching restriction; the algorithm's degree of freedom depends on this flexibility.
domain assumption The 8 weeks of recorded events (Pold, Pnew) are representative and free of confounding production changes.
Section 4 acknowledges plant dynamics (facility upgrades, shift changes) but asserts stability within the 8 weeks; the before/after comparison relies on this.

invented entities (1)

assessed Average Batch Size (aABS)
purpose: Target KPI used to evaluate the quality of sequences for the paint shop, computed with a simulator of the undocumented legacy paint shop control.
aABS is defined by the authors and measured with the authors' reverse-engineered simulator; it cannot be directly verified from plant data in the paper, so it carries no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Car Resequencing on Mixed-Model Assembly Lines: Algorithm Development and Deployment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NP3UKY3I

@misc{pith2026250717422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Car Resequencing on Mixed-Model Assembly Lines: Algorithm Development and Deployment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NP3UKY3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17422}
}

abstract

The mixed-model assembly line (MMAL) is a production system used in the automobile industry to manufacture different car models on the same conveyor, offering a high degree of product customization and flexibility. However, the MMAL also poses challenges, such as finding optimal sequences of models satisfying multiple constraints and objectives related to production performance, quality, and delivery -- including minimizing the number of color changeovers in the Paint Shop, balancing the workload and setup times on the assembly line, and meeting customer demand and delivery deadlines. We propose a multi-objective algorithm to solve the MMAL resequencing problem under consideration of all these aspects simultaneously. We also present empirical results obtained from recorded event data of the production process over $4$ weeks following the deployment of our algorithm in the Saarlouis plant of Ford-Werke GmbH. We achieved an improvement of the average batch size of about $30\%$ over the old control software translating to a $23\%$ reduction of color changeovers. Moreover, we reduced the spread of cars planned for a specific date by $10\%$, reducing the risk of delays in delivery. We discuss effectiveness and robustness of our algorithm in improving production performance and quality as well as trade-offs and limitations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Resequencing of mixed-model assembly lines: Survey and research agenda

Nils Boysen, Armin Scholl, and Nico Wopperer. Resequencing of mixed-model assembly lines: Survey and research agenda. European Journal of Operational Research , 2012

work page 2012
[2]

A decomposition approach for the car resequencing problem with selectivity banks

Nils Boysen and Michael Zenker. A decomposition approach for the car resequencing problem with selectivity banks. Computers & Operations Research , 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Wenchong Chen, Xuejian Gong, Fangyu Liu, Hongwei Liu, and Roger J. Jiao. Bilevel interactive optimisation for rebatching scheduling problem with selectivity banks in high variety flow line production. International Journal of Production Research , 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Deep reinforcement learning for solving car resequencing with selectivity banks in automotive assembly shops

Yuzhe Huang, Gaocai Fu, Buyun Sheng, Yingkang Lu, Junpeng Yu, and Xiyan Yin. Deep reinforcement learning for solving car resequencing with selectivity banks in automotive assembly shops. International Journal of Production Research , 0(0):1--22, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Improving order with queues, 2023

Andreas Karrenbauer, Leonie Wennmann, Kurt Mehlhorn, Pranabendu Misra, Paolo Luigi Rinaldi, Anna Twelsiek, Siavash Rahimi Shateranloo, and Alireza Haqi. Improving order with queues, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Najjaran

Maziyar Khadivi, Todd Charter, Marjan Yaghoubi, Masoud Jalayer, Maryam Ahang, Ardeshir Shojaeinasab, and H. Najjaran. Deep reinforcement learning for machine scheduling: Methodology, the state-of-the-art, and future directions. Social Science Research Network , 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Paint batching problem on m-to-1 conveyor systems

Sung-Seok Ko, Yong-Hee Han, and Jin Young Choi. Paint batching problem on m-to-1 conveyor systems. Computers & Operations Research , 2016

work page 2016
[8]

A hybrid simulation model for optimal color-batching resequencing in paint shop

Jinling Leng, Chun Jin, Alexander Vogl, and Dirk Wortmann. A hybrid simulation model for optimal color-batching resequencing in paint shop. 2019

work page 2019

Show all 15 references

[9]

A multi-objective reinforcement learning approach for resequencing scheduling problems in automotive manufacturing systems

Jinling Leng, Xingyuan Wang, Shiping Wu, Chun Jin, Meng Tang, Rui Liu, Alexander Vogl, and Huiyu Liu. A multi-objective reinforcement learning approach for resequencing scheduling problems in automotive manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research , 2022

2022
[10]

Supply chain planning in the German automotive industry

Herbert Meyr. Supply chain planning in the German automotive industry . Supply Chain Planning: Quantitative Decision Support and Advanced Planning Solutions , pages 343--365, 2009

2009
[11]

The maximum length car sequencing problem

Lara Pontes, Carlos Neves, Anand Subramanian, and Maria Battarra. The maximum length car sequencing problem. European Journal of Operational Research , 2024

2024
[12]

Integrating virtual resequencing with car resequencing via selectivity banks for mixed-model assembly lines

Hui Sun. Integrating virtual resequencing with car resequencing via selectivity banks for mixed-model assembly lines. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 189:109990, 2024

2024
[13]

Shao, and Jian-gong Zhou

Hui Sun, Shujin Fan, X. Shao, and Jian-gong Zhou. A colour-batching problem using selectivity banks in automobile paint shops. 2015

2015
[14]

A virtual resequencing problem in automobile paint shops

Ying-qiu Xu and Jian-gong Zhou. A virtual resequencing problem in automobile paint shops. 2016

2016
[15]

Environment-aware production scheduling for paint shops in automobile manufacturing: A multi-objective optimization approach

Rui Zhang. Environment-aware production scheduling for paint shops in automobile manufacturing: A multi-objective optimization approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Resequencing of mixed-model assembly lines: Survey and research agenda

Nils Boysen, Armin Scholl, and Nico Wopperer. Resequencing of mixed-model assembly lines: Survey and research agenda. European Journal of Operational Research , 2012

work page 2012

[2] [2]

A decomposition approach for the car resequencing problem with selectivity banks

Nils Boysen and Michael Zenker. A decomposition approach for the car resequencing problem with selectivity banks. Computers & Operations Research , 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Wenchong Chen, Xuejian Gong, Fangyu Liu, Hongwei Liu, and Roger J. Jiao. Bilevel interactive optimisation for rebatching scheduling problem with selectivity banks in high variety flow line production. International Journal of Production Research , 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Deep reinforcement learning for solving car resequencing with selectivity banks in automotive assembly shops

Yuzhe Huang, Gaocai Fu, Buyun Sheng, Yingkang Lu, Junpeng Yu, and Xiyan Yin. Deep reinforcement learning for solving car resequencing with selectivity banks in automotive assembly shops. International Journal of Production Research , 0(0):1--22, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Improving order with queues, 2023

Andreas Karrenbauer, Leonie Wennmann, Kurt Mehlhorn, Pranabendu Misra, Paolo Luigi Rinaldi, Anna Twelsiek, Siavash Rahimi Shateranloo, and Alireza Haqi. Improving order with queues, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Najjaran

Maziyar Khadivi, Todd Charter, Marjan Yaghoubi, Masoud Jalayer, Maryam Ahang, Ardeshir Shojaeinasab, and H. Najjaran. Deep reinforcement learning for machine scheduling: Methodology, the state-of-the-art, and future directions. Social Science Research Network , 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Paint batching problem on m-to-1 conveyor systems

Sung-Seok Ko, Yong-Hee Han, and Jin Young Choi. Paint batching problem on m-to-1 conveyor systems. Computers & Operations Research , 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

A hybrid simulation model for optimal color-batching resequencing in paint shop

Jinling Leng, Chun Jin, Alexander Vogl, and Dirk Wortmann. A hybrid simulation model for optimal color-batching resequencing in paint shop. 2019

work page 2019