Solving a warehouse inventory control problem by Benders decomposition and the Lagrangian relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern businesses, organizations hold large numbers of inventory items, but cannot find their inventory system economical to make policies for the management of individual inventory items. In this paper, a mathematical model is presented to classify inventory items, taking into account significant profit and cost reduction indices. The model has an objective function to maximize the net profit of items in stock. Limitations such as budget even inventory shortages are taken into account too. The mathematical model is solved by the Benders decomposition and the Lagrange relaxation algorithms. Then, the results of the two solutions are compared. The TOPSIS technique and statistical tests are used to evaluate and compare the proposed solutions with one another and to choose the best one. The results show that the Lagrange algorithm is more efficient for solving the model in terms of both computational time and quality. Subsequently, several sensitivity analyses are performed on the model, which helps inventory control managers determine the effect of inventory management costs on optimal decision making and item grouping. Finally, according to the results of evaluating the efficiency of the proposed model and the solution method, a real-world case study is conducted on the ceramic tile industry. Based on the proposed approach, several managerial perspectives are gained on optimal inventory grouping and item control strategies
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".