Reinforcement Learning-Based Production Scheduling in an Industry-Based Coating Scenario Using the Digital Model Playground
Authors: Arne Kröger, Ralf Buschermöhle, Wilhelm Hasselbring, Henrik Wilbers
Organizations: Faculty of Management, Culture and Technology Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences Lingen, Germany · Department for Computer Science Software Engineering Group Kiel University Kiel, Germany
Production scheduling in complex manufacturing environments is challenging when sequence-dependent setup times, stochastic disturbances, and due-date constraints must be addressed simultaneously. While reinforcement learning (RL) methods have shown promising results in research, most studies rely on simplified benchmark processes, limiting their industrial relevance. This paper demonstrates the applicability of RL-based scheduling in an industry-inspired coating process that reflects practical complexities such as sequence-dependent setup times, machine breakdowns, and variable utilization. The open-source Digital Model Playground (DMPG), a discrete event simulation framework, is used to model the scenario and to train RL agents. Two standard algorithms, Deep Q-Networks and Proximal Policy Optimization, are benchmarked against conventional dispatching rules to illustrate feasibility and to provide a transparent testbed for further research. Results indicate that RL-based scheduling achieves balanced improvements across key performance indicators, with PPO delivering the most robust performance. The main contribution of this work is to bridge the gap between academic research and industrial practice by validating RL-based scheduling in a realistic, shareable scenario and by providing a reusable open-source framework for future studies.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Simulated Coating Process.
Fig. 2: State representation of the production process used as input for the RL agent.
Fig. 3: Comparison of the average setup time per product across scheduling methods.
Fig. 4: Comparison of the weighted deviation from the scheduled due date across scheduling methods.
Fig. 5: Comparison of the number of unfinished products across scheduling methods.
Algorithm
Setup Time
Deviation
Not Finished
PPO
31.71
1,144
53.95
DQN
43.02
940
144.8
MST-0
67.05
1,210
57.48
MST-5
50.15
1,112
61.47
MST-10
44.85
1,390
72.67
MST-20
41.19
2,855
107.7
TABLE I: Average setup time, weighted deviation, and number of unfinished products across all utilization levels.