MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123413788 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2022.1215

Stochastic Dual Dynamic Programming for Multiechelon Lot Sizing with Component Substitution

2022· article· en· W3123413788 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

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceStochastic programmingHeuristicsContext (archaeology)HeuristicDynamic programmingDual (grammatical number)Linear programmingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigates lot sizing with component substitution under demand uncertainty. The integration of component substitution with lot sizing in an uncertain demand context is important because the consolidation of the demand for components naturally allows risk-pooling and reduces operating costs. The considered problem is relevant not only in a production context, but also in the context of distribution planning. We propose a stochastic programming formulation for the static–dynamic type of uncertainty, in which the setup decisions are frozen but the production and consumption quantities are decided dynamically. To tackle the scalability issues commonly encountered in multistage stochastic optimization, this paper investigates the use of stochastic dual dynamic programming (SDDP). In addition, we consider various improvements of SDDP, including the use of strong cuts, the fast generation of cuts by solving the linear relaxation of the problem, and retaining the average demand scenarios. Finally, we propose two heuristics, namely, a hybrid of progressive hedging with SDDP and a heuristic version of SDDP. Computational experiments conducted on well-known instances from the literature show that the heuristic version of SDDP outperforms other methods. The proposed method can plan with up to 10 decision stages and 20 scenarios per stage, which results in 20 10 scenario paths in total. Moreover, as the heuristic version of SDDP can replan to account for new information in less than a second, it is convenient in a dynamic context. Summary of Contribution: We believe our paper is suitable for the mission and scope of IJOC because we design efficient algorithms to solve an operations research problem. More precisely, we investigate the use of stochastic dual dynamic programming (SDDP) for lot sizing with component substitution under demand uncertainty. In this work, we consider the static–dynamic decision framework, and a good approximation of the expected costs in this context requires us to solve the problem with a large number of scenarios of future demand. As solving the considered problem is computationally intensive, we investigate the use of SDDP, which decomposes the problem per decision stage. We study several enhancements of SDDP, such as the use of strong cuts, the incorporation of a lower bound computed with the average demand scenario, the multicut version of SDDP, and scenario sampling with randomized quasi–Monte Carlo. Despite these improvements, the convergence of SDDP remains slow. Consequently, we propose a heuristic version of SDDP and a hybrid of progressive hedging and SDDP. We present the results of an extensive computational study performed on well-known instances from the literature. The results show that the heuristic SDDP outperforms the hybrid of progressive hedging with SDDP and state-of-the-art methods from the literature. Besides, our analysis shows that component substitution can pool the risk, and it allows maintaining the same service level with less inventory. The presented methodology can be used by practitioners to size their production lots, and subsequent researchers can build upon our results to consider uncertainty in other parameters, such as lead times, yields, and production capacities. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms – Discrete. Funding: This work was supported by Mitacs and the Institut de Valorisation des Données (IVADO). Supplemental Material: The online supplement is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2022.1215 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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