Hierarchical production planning in forestry using price-directed decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest planning models have increased in size and complexity as planners address a growing array of economic, ecological, and societal issues. Hierarchical production models offer a means of better managing these large and complex models. Hierarchical production planning models decompose large models into a set of smaller linked models. For example, in this paper, a Lagrangian relaxation formulation and a modified Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition – column generation routine are used to solve a hierarchical forest planning model that maximizes the net present value of harvest incomes while recognizing specific geographical units that are subject to harvest flow and green-up constraints. This allows the planning model to consider forest-wide constraints such as harvest flow, as well as address separate subproblems for each contiguous management zone for which detailed spatial plans are computed. The approach taken in this paper is different from past approaches in forest hierarchical planning because we start with a single model and derive a hierarchical model that addresses integer subproblems using Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition. The decomposition approach is demonstrated by analyzing a set of randomly generated planning problems constructed from a large forest and land inventory data set.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".