MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100652140 · doi:10.1287/opre.48.2.243.12377

Probabilistic Analysis of Renewal Cycles: An Application to a Non-Markovian Inventory Problem with Multiple Objectives

2000· article· en· W2100652140 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmut Parlar

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom variableProbability distributionMathematical optimizationMarkov chainProbabilistic logicRenewal theoryComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many stochastic optimization problems are solved using the renewal reward theorem (RRT). Once a regenerative cycle is identified, the objective function is formed as the ratio of the expected cycle cost to the expected cycle time and optimized using the standard techniques. Application of the RRT requires only the first moments of the cycle-related random variables. However, if the start of a cycle corresponds to an important event, e.g., end of a period of shortages in an inventory problem, knowing only the expected time—and the cost—of the cycle may not give enough information on the functioning of the stochastic system. For example, it may be useful to know the probability that the cycle cost, or more importantly, the average cost per unit time will exceed predetermined levels. In this paper we provide a complete description of the cycle-related random variables for a stochastic inventory problem with supply interruptions. We assume a general phase-type distribution for the supplier's availability (ON) periods and an exponential distribution for the OFF periods. The first passage time of an embedded Markov chain of the ON/OFF process is used to develop the expressions for the exact distribution and the moments of the cycle time and cycle cost random variables. We then describe a method for computing the probability that the average cost per unit time will exceed a predetermined level. This method is used to construct an “efficient frontier” for the two criteria of (i) average cost and (ii) the probability of exceeding it. The efficient frontier is used to find a solution to the multiple-criteria optimization problem.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations ResearchSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207