4.2 Article

Optimal matching of random parts

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2022.102688

关键词

Binomial matching; Cost function; Stochastic production; Minimum-cost combination of inputs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the minimization of cost for an expected random production output, given an assembly of finished goods from two random inputs. The optimal input portfolio is described using the standard normal approximation and a tight concave envelope. Numerical studies confirm the practicality of the envelope approach.
This paper examines the minimization of the cost for an expected random production output, given an assembly of finished goods from two random inputs, matched in two categories. We describe the optimal input portfolio, first using the standard normal approximation of the binomial classification distributions, and second using a tight concave envelope instead of the exact output objective. The latter approach yields closed-form expressions for the factor demands and total costs which are linear in the expected output and which approximate the solution to the original minimum-cost matching problem for sufficiently large production batches. A key structural insight is that depending on the ratio of input prices, one of the inputs should be considered as critical componentwhile the other assumes the role of a buffer component.As long as the cost ratio does not reach a critical threshold, which is proportional to the ratio of the grade-attainment likelihoods, the relative composition of the optimal input portfolio remains largely invariant. A numerical study confirms the practicality of the envelope approach, both as a seed for a numerical solution of the exact optimality conditions and as an approximate solution in closed-form.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据