Fragility-based lot-sizing in veterinary pharmaceutical plants under demand uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a production lot-sizing problem inspired by a veterinary pharmaceutical plant in which demands are uncertain. First, we develop a deterministic capacitated lot-sizing model for the production of animal pesticides, performed in three machine-specific stages. Second, we propose a traditional robust optimisation formulation following the popular budget-of-uncertainty approach. Third, we derive a novel fragility-based approach that circumvents well-known issues with traditional robust optimisation approaches, such as the estimation of budgets of uncertainty, the over-conservatism of robust solutions and the sensitivity of solutions to the decision maker's risk attitude. The fragility-based approach is grounded in the idea of minimising violations, over the full uncertainty support, from a user-specified cost target. It avoids the estimation of budgets of uncertainty and produces less conservative solutions via explicit modelling of constraint violation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on instances built upon real data provided by our industrial partner, a major player in the Brazilian veterinary pharmaceutical sector. The results show that our fragility-based approach reduces average total costs across all instances and maintains greater model stability under different target estimations. It also preserves cost savings when bottlenecks are introduced in production and when inventory costs and capacities are varied.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".