MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402036307 · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2024.103183

An integrated approach for lot-sizing and storage assignment

2024· article· en· W4402036307 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOmega · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersHEC Montréal
KeywordsHeuristicsSizingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)RelocationHolding costHeuristicOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the interaction between the lot-sizing problem and the storage assignment problem. Traditional lot-sizing problems have been studied for decades. However, only recent studies have further considered decisions related to the assignment of items to inventory locations, aiming to better model the complex reality. In our problem, the storage space is divided into several separate locations, and the inventory is assigned to the storage locations taking into account specific compatibility conditions. Relocation of inventory is also possible if needed. In addition to the traditional cost elements from the lot-sizing problem, we consider others related to holding inventory, such as fixed storage costs, handling costs, and relocation costs. We model the problem using a general mathematical model, as well as a transportation reformulation, which provides better lower bounds. We propose several heuristics to solve the problem by splitting it into smaller subproblems, which are then solved sequentially. A series of computational experiments is carried out in order to evaluate the impact of the integration between the lot-sizing and the storage assignment decisions, as well as the behavior of the different solution approaches. The results show that the proposed heuristics are highly effective in finding feasible solutions that are very close to the best solutions, while spending 97% less computational time compared to solving the full mathematical model. When compared to the relax-and-fix heuristic (benchmark), certain versions of the heuristics can find better solutions using less computational effort, underscoring the benefit of employing more specialized heuristics. Additionally, we conduct a sensitivity analysis with the aim of understanding the impact of key input parameters on the problem. The results indicate a significant influence of compatibility levels on the problem complexity. Limited item–item compatibility notably increases complexity, whereas restricted item–location compatibility reduces computational time. • Integrated lot-sizing and storage assignment problem with new cost elements. • Storage locations taking into account specific compatibility conditions. • Traditional and transportation reformulations for the problem. • Efficient heuristics to finding feasible solutions and solve the problem. • Provide insights for optimizing production planning and storage assignment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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