MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787585 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-277

Research on the multi-objective operation efficiency improvement path of enterprises based on reinforcement learning algorithm

2025· article· en· W4409787585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigitalization and Economic Development in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningPath (computing)Computer scienceReinforcementArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In enterprise operations, multi-objective optimization involves multiple conflicting objectives such as cost escalation control, customer satisfaction, and production efficiency.Based on reinforcement learning algorithm, the article deals with multi-objective optimization problem in enterprise operation through the interactive learning between intelligent body and environment, for which a multi-objective operation efficiency improvement path for enterprise based on Q-learning scheduling is designed.The simulation data is utilized to generate the PDR tree structure, and subsequently, the intelligent body is prompted to complete the multi-objective operation learning of the enterprise through several iterations.On this basis, the intelligent body completes all the actions and generates scheduling strategies to improve operational efficiency.The model proposed in this paper can predict the demand changes of enterprises in the future time window and make the best decision to improve the operational efficiency.Under the model of this paper, the mean values of pure technical efficiency as well as scale efficiency of 10 firms in 2024 are 0.9 and 0.933, respectively, and they are predicted to continue to grow in 2025.The model reduces the firms' average operating costs and administrative expenses, while employee compensation and fixed assets increase by 49.58% and 19.48%.Since the survey period, the TFP index of all 10 companies is greater than 1, which indicates that, the application of the model in this paper improves the operational efficiency of the companies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDigitalization and Economic Development in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207