MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883368372 · doi:10.1111/poms.12931

A Fixed Rate Production Problem with Poisson Demand and Lost Sales Penalties

2018· article· en· W2883368372 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Faaland, Mark McKay, Thomas Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
FundersOregon State University
KeywordsPoisson distributionLost salesQueueMathematical optimizationComputer scienceInventory controlProduction (economics)Function (biology)Holding costLead timeSafety stockMathematical economicsMathematicsOperations researchEconomicsOperations managementStatisticsMicroeconomicsSupply chain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We solve a variation of a classic make‐to‐stock inventory problem introduced by Gavish and Graves. A machine is dedicated to a single product whose demand follows a stationary Poisson distribution. When the machine is on, items are produced one at a time at a fixed rate and placed into finished‐goods inventory until they are sold. In addition, there is an expense for setting up the machine to begin a production run. Our departure from Gavish and Graves involves the handling of unsatisfied demand. Gavish and Graves assumed it is backordered, while we assume it is lost, with a unit penalty for each lost sale. We obtain an optimal solution, which involves a produce‐up‐to policy, and prove that the expected time‐average cost function, which we derive explicitly, is quasi‐convex separately in both the produce‐up‐to inventory level Q and the trigger level R that signals a setup for production. Our search over the ( Q, R) array begins by finding Q 0 , the minimizing value of Q for R = 0. Total computation to solve the overall problem, measured in arithmetic operations, is quadratic in Q 0 . At most 3 Q 0 cost function evaluations are required. In addition, we derive closed‐form expressions for the objective function of two related problems: one involving make‐to‐order production and another for control of an N‐policy M/ D/1 finite queue. Finally, we explore the possibility of solving the lost sales problem by applying the Gavish and Graves algorithm for the backorder 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207