Inventory pinch based, multiscale models for integrated planning and scheduling‐part II: Gasoline blend scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration of planning and scheduling optimizes simultaneous decisions at both levels, thereby leading to more efficient operation. A three‐level discrete‐time algorithm which uses nonlinear models and integrates planning and detailed scheduling is introduced: first level optimizes nonlinear blend models via multiperiod nonlinear programming (NLP), where period boundaries are initially determined by the inventory pinch points; second level uses fixed recipes (from the first level) in a multiperiod mixed‐integer linear program to determine first an optimal production plan and then to optimize an approximate schedule which minimizes the total number of switches in blenders and swing tanks; third level computes detailed schedules that adhere to inventory constraints computed in the approximate schedule. If inventory infeasibilities appear at the second or the third level, the first‐level periods are subdivided and blend recipes are reoptimized. Algorithm finds the same or better solutions and is substantially faster than previously published full‐space continuous‐time model. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 60: 2475–2497, 2014
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".