Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Production Planning Under Demand and Endogenous Supply Uncertainty

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims an exact, provably convergent Benders-based method for production planning under demand and production-choice-dependent yield uncertainty, and reports it solves 71.76% of 1,200 instances versus 23.98% for CPLEX.

desk verdict A genuinely new Benders cut for endogenous supply uncertainty, with an unstated surjectivity assumption that needs to be added before the exactness claim is fully true. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23780 v1 pith:ZCZX47IH submitted 2025-06-30 math.OC

Mike Hewitt , Giovanni Pantuso This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C1590B3090C11
keywords productionplanningendogenousuncertaintyyielddemandstochasticprogrammingBendersdecompositionoptimalitycutsvalueofsolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies a production planning problem in which a company decides how much of each product to source from capacitated facilities while facing uncertainty in both customer demand and production yields. The distinctive feature is that supply uncertainty is endogenous: which facility produces a product and at which production level determines the probability distribution of that product's yield. The authors model the problem as a two-stage stochastic program and propose an exact Benders-based decomposition that avoids enumerating the exponentially many distributions induced by production-level choices. They prove the method converges in finitely many iterations, and on 1,200 randomly generated instances it solves 71.76% of them to optimality within 1,800 seconds, versus 23.98% for a commercial solver on the full linearized model and 8.82% for that solver's own Benders decomposition. Their value-of-stochastic-solution analysis reports an average 17.64% expected-profit improvement from modeling both sources of uncertainty, which is much larger than modeling demand uncertainty (5.37%) or yield uncertainty (0.99%) alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-product optimality cut (19) of Proposition 1, together with the product-separability of expected revenue $Q_p(x,y)$ that makes one approximation variable $\mu_p$ per product sufficient in the relaxed master problem. Given a master solution $(\bar{x},\bar{y},\bar{\mu})$, the cut partitions the scenarios of the induced distribution into those where demand is at least the finished-goods inventory and those where inventory is in excess, writes expected revenue as a piecewise-linear expression in the allocation variables $x$, and appends a big-$M$ term $M_p(|F| - \sum_{f} y_{p,f,l(p,f,d(\bar{y}))})$ that makes the expression a valid upper bound whenever a different distribution is enforced. This mirrors the integer L-shaped method, with the difference that the cut is linear in the continuous variables $x$ rather than constant, so it also corrects revenue over-estimates caused by the choice of production volumes within a fixed distribution. The a priori bound (Bnd-p) and the valid inequalities VI1 and VI2 strengthen the relaxed master problem; VI2, which uses the maximum over distributions of expected yields at each facility, produces the largest computational gains.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to construct an instance in which two products share a facility-wide yield shock, so the independence assumption of Section 3.2 fails, and ask whether BBM terminates with a below-tolerance gap while some certificate $\mu_p$ still differs from the true expected revenue $Q_p(x,y)$. Within the model's own assumptions the cleanest test is simpler: solve any instance to the reported tolerance and verify the equality $\mu_p = Q_p(x,y)$ for every product $p$ at termination, as Proposition 7 requires; a single instance with a zero reported gap and a mismatched certificate would refute the exactness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the production planning problem with endogenous supply uncertainty — a two-stage stochastic program in which first-stage choices of production levels at facilities select which yield-and-demand distribution governs each product — admits an exact decomposition whose relaxed master problem keeps a single revenue-approximation variable $\mu_p$ per product. The decomposition exploits the separability of the expected revenue function $Q_p(x,y)$ by product: when the approximation variable over-estimates the true expected revenue at a master solution, the algorithm adds a per-product optimality cut (inequality (19)) that evaluates exactly to $Q_p(x,y)$ when the same production levels are chosen and to a valid upper bound otherwise. The paper proves (Proposition 6) that no solution whose revenue estimates are exact is ever cut off, and (Proposition 7) that once all finitely many such cuts are added, every master solution satisfies $\mu_p = Q_p(x,y)$ for all $p$, which guarantees finite convergence to an optimal solution of the original problem. The computational study reports that the method solves 71.76% of the 1,200 instances, with an average solve time of 151.27 seconds, and that adding a valid inequality based on maximum expected yields (VI2) raises the solved share to 87.24% and cuts average time to 96.65 seconds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the yields of different products are mutually independent, which is what makes expected revenue separable by product and justifies one approximation variable and one family of cuts per product; the authors state in Section 6 that correlated yields across products, or products that substitute for each other, would break this separability and invalidate cuts (19).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Instances in the reported testbed range up to 10 products, 5 facilities, 3 production levels per product–facility pair, and 60,750 scenarios, and the method solves the largest of them without enumerating the $|L|^{|P||F|}$ distributions that production-level choices can induce.
  • The reported solve rates — 71.76% for the Benders method versus 23.98% for CPLEX on the full linearized model and 8.82% for CPLEX's own Benders decomposition — indicate that the product-separable cut structure, rather than decomposition alone, is what makes the instance class tractable.
  • Proposition 7 guarantees that once all optimality cuts are present, the master solution satisfies $\mu_p = Q_p(x,y)$ for every product $p$, so stopping with a gap below tolerance is an exact certificate, not a heuristic rule.
  • The value-of-stochastic-solution estimates — 0.99% for yield uncertainty alone, 5.37% for demand uncertainty alone, 17.64% for both — imply that a planner who replaces either random quantity by its expectation forfeits a measurable share of expected profit, and that modeling both yields an improvement larger than the sum of the two individual effects.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same per-product cut construction should transfer to any two-stage stochastic program whose expected recourse value separates across items and is piecewise linear in the continuous first-stage variables, with the active probability distribution selected by binary variables; the inventory-revenue context is not essential to the proof.
  • Because all reported results assume yields are independent across products, a natural stress test is to add a facility-wide yield factor shared by all products; the separability needed for cuts (19) would fail, and the open question is how quickly the method degrades compared with a joint-cut variant.
  • The authors' reported average gap of 134.04% on instances BBM could not solve suggests that future gains lie in stronger a priori upper bounds (VI2 already cut that average gap to 30.48%) rather than in additional cut families.
  • A testable managerial reading of the VSS tables is that yield uncertainty matters mainly through its interaction with demand uncertainty — when only one quantity is random, the other's expected value masks much of the risk — which could be checked by sweeping yield and demand variances independently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-stage stochastic program for production planning in which demand uncertainty is exogenous but supply (yield) uncertainty is endogenous: the distribution of yields for a product depends on the production levels chosen at facilities. The authors formulate PP-DESUP with binary level choices and distribution-selection variables, propose a Benders-based decomposition (BBM) with per-product revenue approximations, prove finite convergence of the added optimality cuts, and report a large computational study (1,200 instances) in which BBM solves substantially more instances than CPLEX on the full linearized model or with CPLEX's automated Benders. The paper also computes values of the stochastic solution for demand-only, supply-only, and joint uncertainty.

Significance. Endogenous (decision-dependent) supply uncertainty is a relevant and methodologically difficult setting, and the proposed decomposition is a natural and potentially useful algorithmic contribution. The proof structure is mostly careful: Propositions 1 and 6 and Lemmas 3–5 give a detailed validity argument for the optimality cuts, Proposition 7 gives a finite-convergence argument, and the computational study is extensive, with large reported speedups over the two benchmarks. The VSS analysis also supports the qualitative claim that modeling both demand and yield uncertainty matters. However, the exactness claim currently depends on an unstated and nontrivial assumption about the correspondence between production-level vectors and yield distributions; this must be made explicit or enforced in the formulation before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, §4.1, Eq. (14)] The reformulation MP (14) is exact only if every production-level vector y satisfying (3) is realizable by some distribution d ∈ D_p, i.e., the map d ↦ (l(p,f,d))_{f∈F} is surjective onto the set of level vectors satisfying (3). This is never stated. As written, the relaxed master problem (17) can return an optimal y for which no such d exists, so d(¯y) in §4.1 is undefined, Q_p(¯x,¯y) cannot be evaluated, and no optimality cut (19) can be generated. Consequently Proposition 7's finite-convergence proof covers only instances in which the level-to-distribution map is surjective. The computational instances use |D_p| = |L|^{|F|}+1 with one distribution per level combination, which is surjective, but the paper's stated exactness claim is broader. Please add an explicit surjectivity assumption in §3.2, or add constraints to MP/RMP that force y to lie in the image of l, and adapt the statements of Propositions 1, 6, and 7 accordingly.
  2. [§3.2, §4.1, Eq. (19)] The text explicitly says that the map l is not presumed to be one-to-one. For the master problem to be well-defined, however, the mapping d ↦ (l(p,f,d))_{f∈F} must be injective on D_p, or Q_p must be defined by maximizing over all distributions compatible with y. Otherwise a single y can be compatible with several distributions having different scenario sets, the notation d(¯y) used in §4.1 and in cut (19) is ambiguous, and Q_p(¯x,¯y) is not a single well-defined number. Please state the required injectivity (or replace d(¯y) by the set of compatible distributions and adjust the cut derivation), and clarify how the computational construction of |D_p| = |L|^{|F|}+1 guarantees this uniqueness, including the role of the additional demand-only distribution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are several typos in the text, including 'endgenous' in the abstract, 'Endogenus' in the problem name in §3, 'enumaration' in §2, and 'unertainty'/'endogeneous' in §6; these should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2, bound (Bnd-p)] In the displayed bound (Bnd-p), the summation is over a set written 'S_sd' and the price is written 'Ops'; these should be 'S_pd' and 'Op', respectively, for consistency with the notation used elsewhere.
  3. [§5.4, Table 8b] The row labeled 'Average' in Table 8b is not a column average over the methods displayed above it and its definition is unclear; please state explicitly what quantity this row reports.
  4. [§5.4] The sentence 'BBM+VI1 was able to solve every instance that BBM could solve and it solved those instances in less time, 129.95 seconds' introduces a number that does not appear in the tables; please show how this value is obtained or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Benders cuts and convergence proof derive from the model equations, and the computational benchmarks are external.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the validity of the MP reformulation (14), the validity of optimality cut (19), and finite convergence (Proposition 7). Each is argued from the model equations (1)-(13) and from the definition of Q_p(x,y) in Section 4.1, not from fitted values or from the authors' prior work. The cut (19) is constructed so that it evaluates to Q_p at the incumbent solution and to a valid upper bound elsewhere; Proposition 1 and Lemmas 3-5 establish this by substitution and scenario-partition comparisons, so the cut is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Proposition 7 relies only on finiteness of the set of cuts, which is counted explicitly as sum_p sum_d 2^{|S_pd|}. The computational study compares BBM against CPLEX-Full and CPLEX-BD on randomly generated instances, so the performance claim is externally benchmarked rather than derived from a self-citation. The literature-review citations to Pantuso [51,52] are contextual and are not load-bearing for the decomposition. The only notable weakness is a correctness gap rather than circularity: MP (14) drops the delta variables and constraints (5)-(6), and Q_p(x,y) requires the existence of d(bar y), i.e. surjectivity of the level-combination-to-distribution mapping is nowhere stated; the computational instances set |D_p|=|L|^{|F|}+1, so the gap is invisible in the experiments. This is an incompleteness in the reformulation proof, not a reduction of the paper's output to its input, and therefore it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithm rests on a finite set of distributions per product, separability of expected revenue by product (which requires independence of yields across products), and finite scenario approximations. The computational VSS claims rest on hand-chosen instance-generation parameters rather than fitted real data.

free parameters (4)
  • Demand distribution parameters = mean 20,000, std 15,000 (normal)
    Chosen for instance generation, not fitted to real data. These drive the VSS numbers but not the algorithm's correctness.
  • Yield distribution parameters = means 0.50/0.70/0.90 with level-dependent stds from 0.20 down to 0.01
    Chosen to model learning effects: higher production levels have lower variance. Define the endogenous uncertainty structure in the experiments.
  • Production level bounds = For |L|=2: (0,0.75ν_p) and (0.75ν_p,ν_p); for |L|=3: (0,0.5ν_p), (0.5ν_p,0.75ν_p), (0.75ν_p,ν_p)
    Define the disjoint production intervals that determine which yield distribution is enforced. These affect the scenario space and computational difficulty.
  • Cost, price, salvage ranges = Cost in [60,80], price in [125,185], salvage in [15,40]
    Randomly drawn to create a 54% gross margin and a loss on leftover inventory. These values influence the magnitude of the VSS results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Yields of different products are mutually independent (Section 3.2).
    This yields separability of Q_p(x,y) by product, the foundation of the per-product Benders cuts. Acknowledged as a critical assumption in Section 6.
  • domain assumption For each product there is a finite set of joint yield-demand distributions D_p, and a map l(p,f,d) specifies the production level at each facility that enforces distribution d (Section 3.2).
    The finite distribution set guarantees only finitely many optimality cuts, which is necessary for finite convergence (Proposition 7).
  • domain assumption Demand uncertainty is exogenous and each distribution d has the same marginal demand distribution (Section 5.1).
    The authors state that demand is appended as an exogenous marginal to the yield distribution, so the model is not actually used for endogenous demand.
  • domain assumption Yield and demand distributions can be adequately represented by finite scenario sets (Section 3.2).
    The model and algorithm operate on discrete scenarios; the computational study samples from normal distributions and truncates yields to [0.25, 1].
  • domain assumption Production levels for each product-facility pair form disjoint intervals and include a zero level (Section 3.2).
    This supports constraint (3) selecting exactly one level and constraint (6) linking the chosen level to the enforced distribution.
  • standard math McCormick linearization exactly represents products of binary δ_pd and bounded continuous variables w and o (Appendix A).
    Used to obtain the linearized benchmark model CPLEX-Full; the result is standard for binary-continuous products.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Production Planning Under Demand and Endogenous Supply Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCZX47IH

@misc{pith2026250623780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Production Planning Under Demand and Endogenous Supply Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCZX47IH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23780}
}
read the original abstract

We study the problem of determining how much finished goods inventory to source from different capacitated facilities in order to maximize profits resulting from sales of such inventory. We consider a problem wherein there is uncertainty in demand for finished goods inventory and production yields at facilities. Further, we consider that uncertainty in production yields is endogenous, as it depends on both the facilities where a product is produced and the volumes produced at those facilities. We model the problem as a two stage stochastic program and propose an exact, Benders-based algorithm for solving instances of the problem. We prove the correctness of the algorithm and with an extensive computational study demonstrate that it outperforms known benchmarks. Finally, we establish the value in modeling uncertainty in both demands and production yields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example with two facilities, F1 and F2, with two production level each, (LA, LB) and (LC, LD), respectively, and four possible distributions d1 through d4, represented by nodes of different shapes. Each distribution di has two possible realizations, namely s di 1 and s di 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scenario partition scenario is also in S ↓ pd(¯y) (¯x, y¯), the expected revenues would have been computed in the same manner. Next, consider a scenario in S B pd(¯y) . Again, the scenario is in S ↓ pd(¯y) (x ∗ , y∗ ) and thus the expected revenues in the solution (x ∗ , y∗ ) for this product are computed presuming the full price, Pp, is earned on all finished goods inventory. However, in the solution (¯x, y, ¯ µ¯) … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Ahmed. Strategic planning under uncertainty: Stochastic integer programming ap- proaches. Phd, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Ahumada and J

    O. Ahumada and J. R. Villalobos. Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review. European journal of Operational research, 196(1):1–20, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    F. A. Al-Khayyal and J. E. Falk. Jointly constrained biconvex programming. Mathe- matics of Operations Research, 8(2):273–286, 1983

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    M. J. Anzanello and F. S. Fogliatto. Learning curve models and applications: Liter- ature review and research directions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , 41(5):573–583, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    R. M. Apap and I. E. Grossmann. Models and computational strategies for multistage stochastic programming under endogenous and exogenous uncertainties. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 103:233–274, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    J. R. Birge. The value of the stochastic solution in stochastic linear programs with fixed recourse. Mathematical programming, 24(1):314–325, 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Colvin and C

    M. Colvin and C. T. Maravelias. A stochastic programming approach for clinical trial planning in new drug development. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 32(11):2626– 2642, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Colvin and C

    M. Colvin and C. T. Maravelias. Modeling methods and a branch and cut algorithm for pharmaceutical clinical trial planning using stochastic programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(1):205–215, 2010. 30

    work page 2010

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Comhaire and F

    P. Comhaire and F. Papier. Syngenta uses a cover optimizer to determine production volumes for its european seed supply chain. Interfaces, 45(6):501–513, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    da Costa Flach

    B. da Costa Flach. Stochastic Programming with Endogenous Uncertainty: An Appli- cation in Humanitarian Logistics . PhD thesis, PUC-Rio, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Denizel, M

    M. Denizel, M. Ferguson, and G. e. C. Souza. Multiperiod remanufacturing planning with uncertain quality of inputs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 57(3):394–404, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    D ´ ıaz-Madro˜ nero, J

    M. D ´ ıaz-Madro˜ nero, J. Mula, and D. Peidro. A review of discrete-time optimization models for tactical production planning. International Journal of Production Research, 52(17):5171–5205, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    L. Dong, X. Geng, G. Xiao, and N. Yang. Procurement strategies with unreliable suppli- ers under correlated random yields. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management , 24(1):179–195, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    L. F. Escudero, A. Gar ´ ın, M. Merino, and G. P´ erez. The value of the stochastic solution in multistage problems. Top, 15(1):48–64, 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    L. F. Escudero, M. A. Gar ´ ın, J. F. Monge, and A. Unzueta. On preparedness resource allocation planning for natural disaster relief under endogenous uncertainty with time- consistent risk-averse management. Computers & Operations Research, 98:84–102, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    L. F. Gelders and L. N. Van Wassenhove. Production planning: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 7(2):101–110, 1981

    1981

  9. [17]

    Goel and I

    V. Goel and I. E. Grossmann. A stochastic programming approach to planning of offshore gas field developments under uncertainty in reserves. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 28:1409–1429, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Goel and I

    V. Goel and I. E. Grossmann. A Class of stochastic programs with decision dependent uncertainty. Mathematical Programming, 108:355–394, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Grosfeld-Nir and Y

    A. Grosfeld-Nir and Y. Gerchak. Multiple lotsizing in production to order with random yields: Review of recent advances. Annals of Operations Research, 126:43–69, 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    Guan and A

    Z. Guan and A. B. Philpott. A multistage stochastic programming model for the new zealand dairy industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(2):289–299, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Gupta and I

    V. Gupta and I. E. Grossmann. Solution strategies for multistage stochastic program- ming with endogenous uncertainties.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 35:2235–2247, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    A. C. Hax and D. Candea. Production and Inventory Management. Prentice-Hall, 1984

    1984

  15. [23]

    Held and D

    H. Held and D. L. Woodruff. Heuristics for Multi-Stage Interdiction of Stochastic Networks. Journal of Heuristics , 11(5-6):483–500, 2005. 31

    2005

  16. [24]

    L. Hellemo. Managing Uncertainty in Design and Operation of Natural Gas Infrastruc- ture. Phd, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Hellemo, P

    L. Hellemo, P. I. Barton, and A. Tomasgard. Decision-dependent probabilities in stochastic programs with recourse. Computational Management Science, 15(3):369–395, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Hooshmand and S

    F. Hooshmand and S. A. MirHassani. Efficient constraint reduction in multistage stochastic programming problems with endogenous uncertainty. Optimization Meth- ods and Software , 31:359–376, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Hooshmand and S

    F. Hooshmand and S. A. MirHassani. Reduction of nonanticipativity constraints in mul- tistage stochastic programming problems with endogenous and exogenous uncertainty. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 87(1):1–18, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Jamalnia, J.-B

    A. Jamalnia, J.-B. Yang, A. Feili, D.-L. Xu, and G. Jamali. Aggregate production plan- ning under uncertainty: a comprehensive literature survey and future research direc- tions. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 102:159–181, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    T. C. J. Jeaunita, V. Sarasvathi, M. S. Harsha, B. M. Bhavani, and T. Kavyashree. An automated greenhouse system using agricultural internet of things for better crop yield. In Smart Cities Symposium 2018 , pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    X. Jin, L. Kumar, Z. Li, H. Feng, X. Xu, G. Yang, and J. Wang. A review of data assimilation of remote sensing and crop models. European Journal of Agronomy, 92:141– 152, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    L. A. Johnson and D. C. Montgomery. Operations research in production planning, scheduling and inventory control . John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1974

    1974

  24. [32]

    P. C. Jones, G. Kegler, T. J. Lowe, and R. D. Traub. Managing the seed-corn supply chain at syngenta. Interfaces, 33(1):80–90, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    P. C. Jones, T. J. Lowe, R. D. Traub, and G. Kegler. Matching supply and demand: The value of a second chance in producing hybrid seed corn. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 3(2):122–137, 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    T. W. Jonsbr ˚ aten, R. J.-B. Wets, and D. L. Woodruff. A class of stochastic programs withdecision dependent random elements. Annals of Operations Research , 82:83–106, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    B. Kazaz. Production planning under yield and demand uncertainty with yield- dependent cost and price. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management , 6(3):209– 224, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Kazaz and S

    B. Kazaz and S. Webster. The impact of yield-dependent trading costs on pricing and production planning under supply uncertainty. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13(3):404–417, 2011. 32

    2011

  29. [37]

    K. G. Kempf, P. Keskinocak, and R. Uzsoy. Planning production and inventories in the extended enterprise: A state of the art handbook, volume 1. 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Khouja and A

    M. Khouja and A. Mehrez. Economic production lot size model with variable pro- duction rate and imperfect quality. The Journal of the Operational Research Society , 45(12):1405–1417, 1994

    1994

  31. [39]

    Kouvelis, G

    P. Kouvelis, G. Xiao, and N. Yang. Role of risk aversion in price postponement under supply random yield. Management Science, 67(8):4826–4844, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Laporte and F

    G. Laporte and F. Louveaux. The integer L-shaped method for stochastic integer pro- grams with complete recourse. Operations Research Letters, 13:133–142, 1993

    1993

  33. [41]

    Laumanns, S

    M. Laumanns, S. Prestwich, and B. Kawas. Distribution shaping and scenario bundling for stochastic programs with endogenous uncertainty. In J. L. Higle, W. R¨ omisch, and S. Sen, editors, Stochastic Programming E-Print Series , Stochastic Programming E-Print Series. Institut f...

    2014

  34. [42]

    S. C. Leung and W.-L. Ng. A stochastic programming model for production planning of perishable products with postponement. Production Planning and Control , 18(3):190– 202, 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    X. Li, Y. Li, and X. Cai. Remanufacturing and pricing decisions with random yield and random demand. Computers & Operations Research, 54:195–203, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Liu and Z.-H

    K. Liu and Z.-H. Zhang. Capacitated disassembly scheduling under stochastic yield and demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 269(1):244–257, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Maggioni and S

    F. Maggioni and S. W. Wallace. Analyzing the quality of the expected value solution in stochastic programming. Annals of Operations Research, 200(1):37–54, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    G. P. McCormick. Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part i—convex underestimating problems. Mathematical programming, 10(1):147–175, 1976

    1976

  39. [47]

    Mercier and P

    L. Mercier and P. Van Hentenryck. An anytime multistep anticipatory algorithm for on- line stochastic combinatorial optimization. Annals of Operations Research, 184(1):233– 271, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Missbauer and R

    H. Missbauer and R. Uzsoy. Optimization models of production planning problems. Planning Production and Inventories in the Extended Enterprise: A State of the Art Handbook, Volume 1, pages 437–507, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Modigliani and F

    F. Modigliani and F. E. Hohn. Production planning over time and the nature of the expectation and planning horizon. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 46–66, 1955

    1955

  42. [50]

    J. Mula, R. Poler, J. P. Garc ´ ıa-Sabater, and F. C. Lario. Models for production planning under uncertainty: A review. International journal of production economics, 103(1):271– 285, 2006. 33

    2006

  43. [51]

    G. Pantuso. A node formulation for multistage stochastic programs with endogenous uncertainty. Computational Management Science , 18(3):325–354, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Pantuso and T

    G. Pantuso and T. K. Boomsma. On the number of stages in multistage stochastic programs. Annals of Operations Research, 292(2):581–603, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Peeta, F

    S. Peeta, F. S. Salman, D. Gunnec, and K. Viswanath. Pre-disaster investment decisions for strengthening a highway network. Computers & Operations Research, 37:1708–1719, 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    G. C. Pflug. On-line optimization of simulated markovian processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 15(3):381–395, 1990

    1990

  47. [55]

    S. S. Sana. An economic production lot size model in an imperfect production system. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(1):158–170, 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    Tarhan and I

    B. Tarhan and I. E. Grossmann. A multistage stochastic programming approach with strategies for uncertainty reduction in the synthesis of process networks with uncertain yields. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 32:766–788, 2008

    2008

  49. [57]

    Tarhan, I

    B. Tarhan, I. E. Grossmann, and V. Goel. Stochastic Programming Approach for the Planning of Offshore Oil or Gas Field Infrastructure under Decision-Dependent Uncertainty. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research , 48:3078–3097, 2009

    2009

  50. [58]

    Tarhan, I

    B. Tarhan, I. E. Grossmann, and V. Goel. Computational strategies for non-convex multistage MINLP models with decision-dependent uncertainty and gradual uncertainty resolution. Annals of Operations Research, 203(1):141–166, 2013

    2013

  51. [59]

    N. N. Thilakarathne, H. Yassin, M. S. A. Bakar, and P. E. Abas. Internet of things in smart agriculture: Challenges, opportunities and future directions. In 2021 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE) , pages 1–9, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    K. Tong, Y. Feng, and G. Rong. Planning under Demand and Yield Uncertainties in an Oil Supply Chain. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research , 51(2):814–834, 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    Viswanath, P

    K. Viswanath, P. Srinivas, and S. F. Sibel. Investing in the Links of a Stochastic Network to Minimize Expected Shortest Path Length. 2004

    2004

  54. [62]

    Voss and D

    S. Voss and D. L. Woodruff. Introduction to computational optimization models for production planning in a supply chain , volume 240. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  55. [63]

    P. B. Wakhare, S. Neduncheliyan, and G. S. Sonawane. Automatic irrigation system based on internet of things for crop yield prediction. In 2020 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics (ESCI) , pages 129–132, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    L. Xie, J. Ma, and M. Goh. Supply chain coordination in the presence of uncertain yield and demand. International Journal of Production Research , 59(14):4342–4358, 2021. 34

    2021

  57. [65]

    C. A. Yano and H. L. Lee. Lot sizing with random yields: A review. Operations research, 43(2):311–334, 1995

    1995

  58. [66]

    X. Yuan, G. Bi, Y. Fei, and L. Liu. Supply chain with random yield and financing. Omega, 102:102334, 2021. Appendix A Linearized PP-DESUP In this appendix we provide an exact linearization of the PP-DESUP using McCormick inequalities. Particularly, we add the variable µpds to ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.