Dynamic mutual adjustment search for supply chain operations planning co-ordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operational planning is an activity carried out by all manufacturing and logistical companies. Its co-ordination with supply chain partners aims at synchronising resources utilisation in order to minimise inefficiencies, such as unnecessary inventory holding, or in order to improve revenue through better resource utilisation. It is a rather complex process as partners have different objectives and information asymmetry is part of any effort to find good co-ordination solutions. Furthermore, because supply chains evolve in a dynamic and uncertain environment, once a co-ordination of operations plans is achieved, input data, such as forecasts or resources’ status, can change and affect on hand plans. These dynamic changes not only require updating the plan that is directly affected by the changes, but it also requires the adjustment of all plans that are part of the same co-ordination solution (Stadtler, H. 2009. A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art. OR Spectrum, 31 (1), 5–30). Therefore, the development of a practical co-ordination approach should be capable of dealing with these dynamic changes. This paper proposes a dynamic mutual adjustment search heuristic, which can be used to co-ordinate the operations plans of two independent supply chain partners, linked by material and non-strategic information flows. Computational analysis shows that the proposed approach produces a win-win strategy in the context of two supply chain partners, and improves the results of upstream planning in each planning cycle, and also improves the fairness of revenue sharing when compared to optimal centralised planning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".