MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083584754 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.09.479

Integrated production scheduling and vehicle routing problem with due dates, inventory holding and penalty costs

2025· article· en· W7083584754 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Vehicle routing problemJob shop schedulingCustomer satisfactionProduction (economics)Holding costIntegrated productionConvergence (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of production scheduling (PS) and vehicle routing problems (VRP) is crucial for achieving operational efficiency in today’s competitive market, yet these problems have often been studied in isolation. A lack of integration can result in increased costs, such as longer lead times and higher holding costs, ultimately affecting customer satisfaction. To address these challenges, this study develops an integrated PS and VRP model aimed at minimizing logistical costs, including inventory holding and fixed vehicle usage costs, as well as penalties for earliness and lateness in deliveries. The proposed model considers multiple customers with varying demands, due dates, and batch sizes, requiring efficient scheduling, production, and timely delivery. The objective is to balance customer satisfaction by minimizing both early and late delivery penalties while optimizing production scheduling to reduce inventory holding costs. An Improved Genetic Algorithm (IGA) is employed to solve the integrated problem, with parameter tuning performed to enhance the balance between exploration and exploitation. The results demonstrate that the IGA achieves superior convergence and solution quality compared to conventional approaches.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207