The consistent production routing problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article introduces the consistent production routing problem in a setting with multiple plants and products. The problem consists in finding minimum‐cost production‐routing plans that also meet specific consistency requirements. In our context, consistency is defined as the degree to which some specified features of the solution remain invariant over time. We consider four forms of consistency, namely: driver, source, product, and plant consistency. For each of these consistency requirements, there is a target maximum value defining the decision‐maker's tolerance to deviations from a perfectly consistent solution. These targets are enforced as soft constraints whose violations need to be minimized when optimizing the integrated production and routing plan. We present a mathematical formulation for the problem and an exact branch‐and‐cut algorithm, enhanced with valid inequalities and specific branching priorities. We also propose a heuristic solution method based on iterated local search and several mathematical programming components. Experiments on a large benchmark set of newly introduced instances show that the enhancements substantially improve the performance of the exact algorithm and that the heuristic method performs robustly for production routing problems with different consistency requirements as well as for standard versions of the problem. We also analyze the cost‐consistency trade‐off of the solutions, confirming that it is possible to impose consistency without excessively increasing the cost. The results also reveal the impact of the first time period when optimizing and measuring the consistency features we study.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".