MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327057938 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2015.065937

Coping with uncertainties in production planning through fuzzy mathematical programming: application to steel rolling industry

2014· article· en· W2327057938 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operational Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationFuzzy logicProduction planningProduction (economics)Computer scienceFuzzy setMembership functionFuzzy numberLinear programmingBilinear interpolationMathematicsOperations researchEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper adopts the approach of fuzzy set theory into the context of a practical production planning problem encountered frequently in steel rolling mills, where the objective is to establish a cost–minimising master production schedule. To better capture the uncertainties associated with the market demand, the problem is formulated as a fuzzy mixed integer bilinear program (FMIBLP) in which the demand constraints are assumed to be rather flexible and characterised by triangular membership functions. The aspiration level for the decision maker is represented by a linear function where the tolerance limits for this function are determined based on the degree of flexibility in demand that the decision maker is willing to undertake. The fuzzy decision set is obtained using two different types of aggregators which, in turn, allows for the transformation of the fuzzy model into a crisp one seeking the maximum value for the aspiration level. A linearisation scheme is first adopted to transform the bilinear model into an equivalent linear model and then an exterior penalty function based algorithm is employed to the linearised version in order to obtain 'near optimal' solutions that minimise deviations from integral batches. Computational experiments are carried out for different problem instances under both aggregation operators and the results are reported.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.323 · 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