Optimal FCFS allocation rules for periodic‐review assemble‐to‐order systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Assemble‐To‐Order (ATO) systems, situations may arise in which customer demand must be backlogged due to a shortage of some components, leaving available stock of other components unused. Such unused component stock is called remnant stock. Remnant stock is a consequence of both component ordering decisions and decisions regarding allocation of components to end‐product demand. In this article, we examine periodic‐review ATO systems under linear holding and backlogging costs with a component installation stock policy and a First‐Come‐First‐Served (FCFS) allocation policy. We show that the FCFS allocation policy decouples the problem of optimal component allocation over time into deterministic period‐by‐period optimal component allocation problems. We denote the optimal allocation of components to end‐product demand as multimatching. We solve the multi‐matching problem by an iterative algorithm. In addition, an approximation scheme for the joint replenishment and allocation optimization problem with both upper and lower bounds is proposed. Numerical experiments for base‐stock component replenishment policies show that under optimal base‐stock policies and optimal allocation, remnant stock holding costs must be taken into account. Finally, joint optimization incorporating optimal FCFS component allocation is valuable because it provides a benchmark against which heuristic methods can be compared. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 62: 158–169, 2015
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".