MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231433840 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2004.1371431

Optimal Lot-Sizing with Capacity-Constraints and Auto-Correlated Interarrival Times

2005· article· en· W4231433840 on OpenAlexaff
S. T. Enns, Li Li

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004. · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingComputer scienceCapacity planningMathematical optimizationReliability engineeringParallel computingMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been recent advances in using queuing relationships to determine lot sizes that minimize mean flowtimes when multiple product types are being produced at capacity-constrained resources. However, these relationships assume lot interarrival times are independent, which is not the case in most manufacturing scenarios. This study examines the performance lot-sizing optimization relationships based on GI/G/1 relationships when lot interarrival times are auto-correlated. Simulation and response surface modeling are used to experimentally determine optimal lot sizes for a sample problem. The flowtimes for "optimal" lot sizes determined analytically are found to compare poorly with the best flowtimes obtained experimentally. An approach is then developed that uses feedback during simulation to adjust parameters within queuing heuristics that support dynamic lot-size optimization. Performance using this approach compares well with the best performance obtained using the much more difficult experimental approach.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference, 2004.Same topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207