Material Requirements Planning Under Demand Uncertainty Using Stochastic Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Material Requirements Planning (MRP), a core component of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, is widely used by manufacturers to determine the production lot sizes of components. These lot sizes are typically computed based on deterministic and dynamic demand assumptions, while safety stocks, which hedge against demand uncertainty, are determined independently based on different assumptions. As the lot sizes and safety stocks are not determined simultaneously, sub‐optimal decisions are often used in practice. The critical impact of inventories and service levels in manufacturing motivates the study of stochastic optimization methods for MRP. In this study, we investigate stochastic optimization methods for MRP systems under demand uncertainty. A two‐stage and a multi‐stage model are proposed to deal with the static‐static and static‐dynamic decision frameworks, respectively. We first derive structural properties of the two‐stage and multi‐stage models to provide insights on the differences between the plans created with these two models. As multi‐stage stochastic programs are not convenient in real‐world applications, several practical enhancements are proposed. First, to address scalability issues, we employ heuristics in combination with advanced sampling methods. Second, to allow real‐time static‐dynamic decisions, we derive a policy from the solution of the multi‐stage model. Third, to deal with the dynamic‐dynamic decision framework, we employ a rolling horizon implementation. The effectiveness and performance of stochastic optimization for MRP are validated by numerical experiments, which demonstrate that the stochastic optimization approaches have the potential to generate significant cost savings compared to traditional methods for production planning and safety stocks determination.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".