On the properties of input-to-output transformations in neuronal networks

  • Received: 01 March 2015 Accepted: 29 June 2018 Published: 01 January 2016
  • MSC : Primary: 92B20, 68T10; Secondary: 68M10, 05D40.

  • Information processing in neuronal networks in certain important cases can be considered as maps of binary vectors, where ones (spikes) and zeros (no spikes) of input neurons are transformed into spikes and no spikes of output neurons. A simple but fundamental characteristic of such a map is how it transforms distances between input vectors into distances between output vectors. We advanced earlier known results by finding an exact solution to this problem for McCulloch-Pitts neurons. The obtained explicit formulas allow for detailed analysis of how the network connectivity and neuronal excitability affect the transformation of distances in neurons. As an application, we explored a simple model of information processing in the hippocampus, a brain area critically implicated in learning and memory. We found network connectivity and neuronal excitability parameter values that optimize discrimination between similar and distinct inputs. A decrease of neuronal excitability, which in biological neurons may be associated with decreased inhibition, impaired the optimality of discrimination.

    Citation: Andrey Olypher, Jean Vaillant. On the properties of input-to-output transformations in neuronal networks[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(3): 579-596. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016009

    Related Papers:

    [1] Luis Gutierrez-Rivera, Robert Peters, Steven Dew, Maria Stepanova . Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy detection of protein-ligand binding using D-glucose and glucose binding protein on nanostructured plasmonic substrates. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(2): 522-539. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.2.522
    [2] Mohamed Samy El-Feky, Passant Youssef, Ahmed Maher El-Tair, Sara Ibrahim, Mohamed Serag . Effect of nano silica addition on enhancing the performance of cement composites reinforced with nano cellulose fibers. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 864-883. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.864
    [3] Brittany L. Oliva-Chatelain, Andrew R. Barron . Experiments towards size and dopant control of germanium quantum dots for solar applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.1.1
    [4] Avner Neubauer, Shira Yochelis, Gur Mittelman, Ido Eisenberg, Yossi Paltiel . Simple down conversion nano-crystal coatings for enhancing Silicon-solar cells efficiency. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(3): 1256-1265. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.3.1256
    [5] Tabinda Sattar, Muhammad Athar . Nano bio-MOFs: Showing drugs storage property among their multifunctional properties. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(3): 508-518. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.3.508
    [6] Qiu-bo Wang, Chao Xu, Yi-bao Jiang, Xian Zhang, Jin-shui Yao, Cong-de Qiao, Qin-ze Liu, Yuan-hong Zhang . The synthesis of conjugated polymers with different length side chains and the effect on their nanoparticles. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(4): 770-780. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.4.770
    [7] Mica Grujicic, Jennifer S. Snipes, S. Ramaswami . Polyurea/Fused-silica interfacial decohesion induced by impinging tensile stress-waves. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(2): 486-507. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.2.486
    [8] Iriczalli Cruz-Maya, Vincenzo Guarino, Marco Antonio Alvarez-Perez . Protein based devices for oral tissue repair and regeneration. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 156-170. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.156
    [9] Songlin Zheng, Yong Ni, Linghui He . Concurrent interface shearing and dislocation core change on the glide dislocation-interface interactions: a phase field approach. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(3): 260-278. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.3.260
    [10] Jean-Marc Bomont, Dino Costa, Jean-Louis Bretonnet . Large effects of tiny structural changes on the cluster formation process in model colloidal fluids: an integral equation study. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(2): 170-181. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.2.170
  • Information processing in neuronal networks in certain important cases can be considered as maps of binary vectors, where ones (spikes) and zeros (no spikes) of input neurons are transformed into spikes and no spikes of output neurons. A simple but fundamental characteristic of such a map is how it transforms distances between input vectors into distances between output vectors. We advanced earlier known results by finding an exact solution to this problem for McCulloch-Pitts neurons. The obtained explicit formulas allow for detailed analysis of how the network connectivity and neuronal excitability affect the transformation of distances in neurons. As an application, we explored a simple model of information processing in the hippocampus, a brain area critically implicated in learning and memory. We found network connectivity and neuronal excitability parameter values that optimize discrimination between similar and distinct inputs. A decrease of neuronal excitability, which in biological neurons may be associated with decreased inhibition, impaired the optimality of discrimination.


    Any machinery system can go to out-of-control any time, and it causes defective products. Problems start with distribution planning when these defective products cause a shortage in the system. A smart production system (Sarkar and Bhuniya [1]) is more reliable than a traditional production system. But a machinery system can be defective at any time. Then the rate of defective products reduces, but it is still in the system. As the system is a smart production system, it has control power for different processes of the production system. Thus, it is assumed that the product's defectiveness is less than the defective products from a traditional production system. Thus, defective products from a smart production system are repairable, and there does not exist any scrap for defective products. Whenever defective products produce, there is a chance of backlogging and shortage. The problem with the shortage is that it causes backlogging (both partial and full backlogging). It not only affects the business immediately but also the long-term effect is more than the instant loss. It not only reduces the sales of products but also damages the brand image. Then, what policy should the manager consider for the production such that the smart production system becomes a sustainable smart production system (Sarkar et al. [2])? The term sustainable refers to a steady production system amid defective production. This implies that amid defective products, the smart production system manages to run without backlogging. Based on these phenomena, this study aims to use product outsourcing {(Caterino et al. [3], Xia et al. [4])} with rework within the smart production system. The rework process for repairable defective products is necessary for the proposed system. It is necessary because a sustainable smart production system aims to reduce waste (Sarkar et al. [5]) from the system, along with reusing products and materials. Investment for this rework process becomes helpful for smooth execution. Thus, the research gaps for the sustainable smart production system are below.

    The following research gap is addressed in this study.

    How does a smart production system deal with defective production than a flexible production system (Chiu et al. [6])? The flexible production system is a well-discussed topic in the literature on shortage and backlogging. A flexible production system is generally used to avoid such situations. But, dealing with defective products for a smart production system is not a widely discussed topic in literature.

    Defective products in any production system are not the discrete case. But, how do defective products of a smart production system differ from defective products of other production systems (De et al. [7])? How do these defective products support the product outsourcing policy in a smart production system?

    Most importantly, how do the two combinations of outsourcing and rework make the system sustainable? There are several studies in the literature based on the green manufacturing system (Lu et al. [8]) but very few discussions about the decision-making strategies for a sustainable smart production system.

    This study contributes to the literature based on the following points:

    This study provides an decision-making scenarios for smart production system in the post COVID-19 era. Manufacturing industries are one of the most affected sectors due to this pandemic. Price hiking in manufacturing sectors is skyrocketing1,2,3. As a result, the production rate decreases for manufacturing sectors than previous. Thus, a partial policy for the production sector is really helpful for this situation to reduce manufacturing costs and collaborate with other industries for economic growth. This policy will help to overcome the crisis time in the manufacturing industry. Smart production sectors face a little bit more problems than traditional productions as their investments are on a larger scale.

    1 https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/mexican-manufacturing-tumbles-price-hikes-bite-2022-07-30/, 18th September, 2022; 9.10 am KST

    2 https://english.alarabiya.net/business/markets/2022/09/01/Steel-price-hikes-to-impact-Japan-s-manufacturers-as-costs-surge, 18th September, 2022; 9.15 am KST

    3 https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/industrial-products/library/inflation-supply-chain-manufacturing.html, 18th September, 2022; 9.20 am KST

    This study deals with defective products from a smart production system. The inspection process is not necessary for these defective products to find out scrap products. Because no scrap product exists among defective products. All defective products are repairable. This reworking is supported by the accuracy level of the smart production.

    The manufacturer uses partial outsourcing of products in combination with in-line production. These outsourced products are used for delivery instead of defective products. This maintains a balance between the profit and reputation of the manufacturer in a sustainable manner.

    The rest of this paper is as follows: Section 2 gives a literature review, and Section 3 presents the purpose of the problem, related mathematical symbols, and associated hypotheses. Mathematical modelling is presented in Section 4, and Section 5 provides the methodology to determine the solution. Numerical discussions are described in Section 6, Section 7 presents a sensitivity analysis, Section 8 provides managerial insights, and Section 9 presents the conclusions.

    A detailed review of a few related studies in literature is given here.

    Product outsourcing in a sustainable smart production system with repairable defective products is not a widely discussed research in the literature. A flexible production rate is very fruitful in order to fulfill the customer demand and regularize the market size. To make a sustainable production system more reliable, flexible production can be used to make the right decisions regarding variable demand. A lot of research papers have been published based on variable production rates. AlDurgam et al. [9] derived a single-vendor single-manufacturer integrated inventory model with variable production rate and stochastic demand. AlDurgam [10] developed an integrated inventory and workforce planning Markov decision process model with a flexible production rate. Nowadays, every company tries to sell their product faster compared to others. To fulfill this, companies adopt various promotional efforts such as trade credit policy and advertisement. Among all the existing promotional efforts, a discount on the selling price is one of the most attractive ways. Maiti and Giri [11] developed a model based on two-period pricing and decision strategies under price-dependent demand. Feng et al. [12] developed a model in which the demand depended on selling price, displayed stocks, and expiration date. Giri et al. [13] considered warranty period, selling price, and green-sensitive consumer demand under revenue-sharing contracts. Li and Teng [14] discussed a model where demand depended on selling price, reference price, product freshness, and displayed stocks. Das et al. [15] derived a model based on the application of preservation technology in inventory control systems with partial backlogging and price-dependent demand. Agrawal and Yadav [16] found profit for an integrated inventory model based on price structuring. They considered a single-manufacturer multi-buyer model with price-sensitive demand. Ruidas et al. [17] developed a production inventory model based on price-sensitive demand. They also considered interval-valued carbon emission parameters. Mahapatra et al. [18] studied a model on the impact of preservation for imprecise demand. They included time-dependent deterioration, promotional cost, and fuzzy learning. Sarkar et al. [19] studied an inventory model on artificial neural networks and multithreading. They developed the model under uncertainty and inflation.

    Related research showed that every research included outsourcing in the manufacturing system. Still, no research considered the effect of product outsourcing on a sustainable smart production system under flexible demand and reworking. Ameknassi et al. [20] developed a green supply chain design with outsourcing. Li et al. [21] considered outsourcing decisions in production and transportation. They considered single and multiple carbon policies in the model. Chen et al. [22] considered outsourcing contracts and ordering decisions in a supply chain model. In that model, they considered multi-dimensional uncertainties. Cortinhal et al. [23] developed a model based on a multi-stage supply chain network design problem where they considered in-house production and partial product outsourcing. They proposed a non-linear programming problem (NLPP) for the location and capacity of warehouse and outsourcing. Heydari et al. [24] considered a two-echelon supply chain system with quantity flexibility contracts and outsourcing. They used a quantity of flexibility (QF) for the retailer to upgrade and downgrade the number of products. Lou et al. [25] studied a retailer-led supply chain and logistics service outsourcing. They used a profit-sharing contract for a double marginalization effect.

    It is clear from previous studies (Table 1) that flexible production produces defective products. Every earlier research focused on defective production, but no earlier research focused on the effect of defective production through partial outsourcing under variable demand. Screening of defective products is required. Pasandideh et al. [26] developed an economic production quantity (EPQ) model where they considered a multi-product produced by a single machine. They considered an imperfect production system of under warehouse construction costs. Khan and Sarkar [27] developed a model where they discussed risk in a supply chain that occurred due to shortage. Taleizadeh et al. [28] developed an economic ordered quantity (EOQ) inventory model, whereas they considered imperfect products and partial backordering. Tsao et al. [29] determined an inventory model with imperfect production, reworking, and trade-credit. They incorporated radio frequency identification (RFID) within the system to support trade-credit. Jani et al. [30] derived an inventory model where shortages could be prevented using preservation technology. They considered chilled products for testing their mathematical model. Panja and Mondal [31] derived a model based on an imperfect production inventory model where they introduced green products under a credit period. They used a tire-two fuzzy number for the retailer's trade-credit policy when the retailer faced defective products in the lot size. Malik and Sarkar [32] developed an inventory model based on an imperfect multi-product production system. They discussed a post-pandemic situation through the production model that produced defective products. Rout et al. [33] derived a sustainable supply chain model which included imperfect production, reworking, and carbon emissions. They tested the model with past data and found a trade-off between total cost and carbon emissions.

    Table 1.  Contribution of the authors.
    Author(s) Greening Demand DI OC Rework Model
    Cost Rate Type
    Chiu et al. [6] NA Constant Yes Yes Yes Inventory
    AlDurgam et al. [9] NA Stochastic NA NA NA Inventory
    Maiti and Giri [11] NA SPDD NA NA NA SCM
    Feng et al. [12] NA Price and Stock NA NA NA Inventory
    Giri et al. [13] Yes SPDD Yes NA Yes SCM
    Li and Teng [14] NA SPDD and Stock NA NA NA Inventory
    Das et al. [15] NA SPDD NA NA NA Inventory
    Agrawal and Yadav [16] NA SPDD NA NA NA Production-inventory
    Ruidas et al. [17] Yes SPDD Yes NA Yes Inventory
    Heydari et al. [24] NA Stochastic NA Yes NA SCM
    Taleizadeh et al. [28] NA NA Yes NA Yes Inventory
    Tsao et al. [29] NA NA Yes NA Yes Inventory
    Chen [34] NA SPDD Yes NA Yes SCM
    Chiu et al. [35] NA Constant Yes NA Yes EPQ
    Nia et al. [36] Yes Constant NA NA NA Inventory
    Tayyab et al. [37] NA Random Yes NA Yes Multi-stage production
    This Paper Yes SPDD Yes Yes Yes Inventory
    SCM, supply chain management; EPQ, economic production quantity; DI, defective items; OC, Outsourcing; SPDD, selling price-dependent demand; NA, not applied.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Due to the advancement of modern technology, the industry always tries to produce perfect products, but in reality, it is impossible to produce all the products perfectly. Due to technical error, machine breakdown, human error, and other causes, some defective products are produced in the system. Some products are repairable out of all the defective products. It is a better decision from the industry point of view to make defective products into perfect products after reworking. Keeping this in mind, new production industries introduce reworking processes in their production system. Chiu et al. [35] derived a simplified EOQ model for multi-item where they considered rework, scrap products, and multiple deliveries. Tayyab et al. [37] discussed an EPQ model that was considered a defective serial production system with reworking. They studied a multi-stage cleaner production system to achieve sustainability. Moussawi-Haidar et al. [38] developed an EPQ model where they included imperfect production and reworking. They worked on the production time and the relation with the economic valuation. Pal and Mahapatra [39] considered an imperfect production, reworking, stochastic demand, and shortages in the production model. Chen [34] determined a model where they considered imperfect production, reworking, and price-dependent demand. The retailer went through three different strategies for the inspection of defective products. Chiu et al. [6] developed a supply chain model with reworking and optimal batch size. They explained a fabricated production system to not outsource products from other industries. Sonntag and Kiesmüller [40] discussed an interesting topic on imperfect production and reworking in their production model. They trade-off between rework and disposal based on the priority of quality and time. Al-Salamah [41] derived an imperfect production model for 100% inspection. They discussed two procedures of reworking, namely, asynchronous and synchronous. Lin et al. [42] determined a production model with capacity constraints. They found the relationship between rework and on-time delivery. Sarkar et al. [43] developed a model for the complex multi-stage production model.

    Green investment helps a production system in many ways. It helps to reduce carbon emissions for reworking and for remanufacturing. A sustainable production system has a great impact on the economy, society, and environment. Lu et al. [8] developed a green manufacturing model where they considered a vendor-managed inventory and effort-dependent demand. Nia et al. [36] determined a vendor-managed inventory model with shortage and greenhouse gas emissions. They used a hybrid methodology and competitive algorithm for a multi-constraint optimization problem. Sepehri et al. [44] developed a supply chain model where they invested in green technology to reduce carbon emissions. They established that investment is mandatory for carbon emissions reduction. Sarkar et al. [5] established a supply chain model for reducing waste and a circular economy. Waste nullification was the new concept in the circular economy for a green environment. Kumar et al. [45] studied a remanufacturing model on greening cost with advertising-dependent demand.

    Literature shows that the discussions about sustainability measure economic, social, and environmental development. But studies on a sustainable production system are different from the sustainable production system. There is not much research discussing the sustainability of a production system that can develop a long-run error-free production system. Recently, Sarkar and Bhuniya [1] discussed a sustainable supply chain under manufacturing-remanufacturing and service strategy. But their model did not consider partial outsourcing. Garai and Sarkar [46] studied a model considering sustainability, second-generation biofuel, returnable items, and customer satisfaction. Sarkar et al. [2] developed a model based on environment and economic sustainability. They included innovative green products by re-manufacturing in their study. Sarkar et al. [47] examined a model on renewable energy, smart multi-type production, variable production rate, sustainability, selling price-dependent demand, and autonomation. Kugele et al. [48] developed a smart production model for reliability and controlled carbon ejection, which was an extension of the concept of Moon et al.'s [49] study. studied a production model for controlled carbon emissions to improve reliability. They discussed on the degree of difficulty of a smart production system.

    In this portion, the problem, along with symbols and hypotheses, is properly described. At first, the research problem is described elaborately, then symbols of the mathematical model, and finally, hypotheses are briefly described.

    The proposed model gives a new direction for achieving sustainability of a smart production system using repairable defective products and outsourcing. through green investment. The market demand for the product is a function of selling price and green investment. The green investment is used for the rework process to maintain product quality. The unit production cost is variable depending on raw material cost, development cost, and tool/die cost. This study derives a decision-making strategy for achieving sustainability of a smart production system using partial outsourcing. The defective rate of products is a random variable. Two scenarios are explained for calculating cycle time: with product outsourcing and without product outsourcing. The objective is to find the optimum profit for the proposed model.

    The following symbols are considered to illustrate the model (Table 2).

    Table 2.  Notation for this model.
    Decision variables
    P flexible production rate (unit/year)
    Q production lot size (units/cycle)
    p average selling price ($/unit)
    θc cost for green investment ($/year)
    Parameters
    K setup cost for in-house production ($/setup)
    h unit holding cost ($/unit/unit time)
    hc unit holding cost for reworked products ($/unit/unit time)
    δ1 scaling parameter of raw material cost for manufacturing system
    δ2 scaling parameter of the development cost for the product during the manufacturing
    δ3 scaling parameter of tool/die cost
    RC reworking cost ($/unit)
    Mπ constant cost of outsourcing ($/unit)
    Nπ unit variable outsourcing cost ($/unit)
    R1 reworking rate (units/year)
    π outsourcing portion of the lot size (0<π<1)
    τ1 connecting variable between K and Mπ, where Mπ=[(1+τ1)K] and 1τ10, K>Mπ
    τ2 connecting variable between C and Nπ, where Nπ=[(1+τ2)C(P)] and τ20
    Tπ replenishment cycle time (time unit)
    E1 on-hand inventory level of new products when production ends
    E2 on-hand inventory level when rework ends
    H on-hand inventory level when outsourcing ends
    t1 production uptime, if π=0 (year)
    t2 reworking time, if π=0 (year)
    t3 production downtime, if π=0 (year)
    T cycle time, if π=0 (year)
    f1π production uptime for new products when outsourcing happens
    f2π reworking time when outsourcing happens
    f3π outsourcing duration and production downtime when outsourcing happens
    I(t) good quality products (units)
    Id(t) defective products (units)
    C(P) unit production cost ($/unit)
    TC total operating cost per cycle ($/year)
    lmax maximum selling price of the product ($/unit)
    lmin minimum selling price of the product ($/unit)
    ξi scaling parameters (i=1,2,3)
    x portion of repairable defective products, which is random
    E[x] expected value of x

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The next subsection gives related hypotheses for the model.

    1) A fixed portion π of the optimal production lot size Q (0<π<1) is outsourced by the manufacturer, i.e., partial outsourcing is considered for the production system. The outsourced products are perfect in quality and delivered to the production system after finishing the reworking process. If π=0, then the system becomes an in-house production system. If π=1, then the system becomes a fully outsourcing system (Chiu et al. [6]).

    2) Defective rate is applicable for the lot size of in-house production, and the defective rate x is random. Among those defective products, only repairable products are reworked (Malik and Sarkar [32]). Rework is used to maintain the quality of reworked products as good as new. Green investment is used for maintaining the quality of reworked products.

    3) The manufacturer has a production system with a variable production rate (VPR). Then the unit production cost (UPC) is variable and depending upon development cost, raw material cost, and tool/die cost, i.e., C(P)=(δ1+δ2P+δ3P) (Sarkar and Bhuniya [1]). The function of UPC clearly shows that the raw material cost is fixed, the development cost is inversely proportional to the VPR, and the tool/die cost is directly proportional to the VPR.

    4) Market demand of the product is selling-price and green investment dependent, i.e., D=ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc (Giri et al. [13]).

    In this section, different costs are discussed for formulating the proposed model. In the present socioeconomic situation, outsourcing can play a vital role in a production system while fulfilling customer requirements. The production rate is variable with a selling price-dependent demand (SPDD). Reworking on defective items with partial outsourcing makes the model more profitable. At the end of each production cycle, the reworking of repairable defective products begins. From Figures 1 and 2, the following formulas are obtained.

    Figure 1.  Inventory position for the proposed system with outsourcing (green line) versus inventory position of a traditional system without outsourcing plan (yellow line).
    Figure 2.  The level of on-hand repairable defective products in production and reworking system for the proposed system.

    The level of perfect quality on-hand products after the completion of in-house production is obtained by subtracting the defective and demand of the products from the production rate using the following formula.

    E1=(PdD)f1π. (4.1)

    The level of the perfect quality on-hand products when the reworking process ends is obtained by the sum of the perfect quality products and the remaining reworked products, which cover the market demand simultaneously. The formula is

    E2=E1+(R1D)f2π. (4.2)

    When the outsourced items are received, the maximum level of perfect quality on-hand products is obtained by the sum of the total perfect quality products after rework with the outsourcing products.

    H=E2+πQ=Df3π. (4.3)

    The following time indicates the production uptime, reworking time, and production downtime when the outsourcing continues to fulfill the market demand. Thus, the required formulas are as follows:

    f1π=E1(PdD)=(1π)QP (4.4)
    f2π=x[(1π)Q]R1 (4.5)
    f3π=HD=E2+πQD. (4.6)

    The cycle time is the sum of the production time (production uptime) of perfect quality products, reworking time of defective products, and production downtime. In general, the cycle time is calculated by dividing the lot sizes by market demand. Hence, the cycle time and repairable defective products formula are considered as follows:

    T=f1π+f2π+f3π=QD (4.7)
    df1π=xPf1π=x[(1π)Q]. (4.8)

    Production setup costs are associated with configuring a machine for a production system. Some examples of production setup costs are the scrap cost of test units run on the machine, the cost of the labor to configure the machine, etc. In this model, the production setup cost is

    PSC=K. (4.9)

    Variable Production cost is an expense that varies in proportion to the output. Variable production cost increases or decreases depending on the volume of the output of the production system. Some examples of variable production costs are the costs of raw materials, packaging, etc. Here, the variable production cost is

    VPC=(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)Q. (4.10)

    The cost, which is fixed and associated with the outsourcing of products, is called fixed outsourcing cost. Some examples of fixed outsourcing costs are the cost of management and coordination of suppliers, the cost of an outsourcing strategy, etc. In this model, the fixed outsourcing cost is

    FOC=Mπ=[(1+τ1)K],1τ10. (4.11)

    The cost that varies from time to time and is associated with the outsourcing of products is called variable outsourcing cost. Some examples of variable outsourcing costs are the cost of unplanned logistics activities and premium freight, the cost of poor or substandard quality, the cost of the warranty, returns, and allowances. etc. In this paper, variable outsourcing cost is as follows:

    VOC=Nπ(πQ)=[(1+τ2)C(P)](πQ),τ20. (4.12)

    Rework cost is an expense incurred in manufacturing and other productive works. When a newly manufactured product finds defective, a rework process executes to fix them and make them salable in this model; the reworking cost is

    RC=RCx[(1π)Q]. (4.13)

    Defective products undergo a rework process to make them perfect as new. These reworked products are then ready for sale. In this model, the holding cost for reworked items is

    HCR=hcdf1π2(f2π). (4.14)

    Every production system produces a perfect product as well as some defective products. All the defective products have undergone a reworking process to make them perfect. in this model, holding costs for perfect quality and defective items are as follows:

    HCPD=h[E1+df1π2(f1π)+E1+E22(f2π)+H2(f3π)]. (4.15)

    Management of a smart production system is much concerned with the reworking process and the quality of reworked products. In this model, this investment is used to maintain the quality of reworked products in the reworking process. This will help to reduce the waste from the smart production system. Thus, the green investment is

    IGP=ξ3θ2c2. (4.16)

    Thus, the total operating cost for the proposed production system, TC(P,Q,p,θc), includes PSC, VPR, FOC, VOC, RC, HCR, and HCPD in f1π,f2π and f3π and IGP. Therefore, TC(P,Q,p,θc) is as follows:

    TC(P,Q,p,θc)=(PSC+VPC+FOC+VOC+RC+HCR+HCPD+IGP)=K+(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)Q+Mπ+Nπ(πQ)+RCx[(1π)Q]+hcdf1π2(f2π)+h[E1+df1π2(f1π)+E1+E22(f2π)+H2(f3π)]+ξ3θ2c2. (4.17)

    By substituting Mπ and Nπ in Eq (4.17), the operating cost TC(P,Q,p,θc) becomes

    TC(P,Q,p,θc)=K+(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)Q+K(1+τ1)+(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(πQ)+RCx[(1π)Q]+hcdf1π2(f2π)+h[E1+df1π2(f1π)+E1+E22(f2π)+H2(f3π)]+ξ3θ2c2. (4.18)

    Thus, the expected operating cost per cycle E[TCU(P,Q,p,θc)] reduces to

    E[TCU(P,Q,p,θc)]=E[TC(Q,P)]E[T]=DQ[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]=1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2] (4.19)

    where E[x]=ζ.

    The revenue is calculated as Revenue = pD. Thus the expected total profit per cycle becomes \newpage

    TEP(P,Q,p,θc)=p(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]=p(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]. (4.20)

    To solve the mathematical model, the classical optimization method is considered. The decision variables P, Q, p, and θc are optimized using a continuous optimization technique. As there are multiple decision variables, the Hessian matrix is used to test the global optimal solution. At first, the expected total profit is partially differentiated with respect to the decision variables and equated to zero. Thus, optimum values P, Q, p, θc are

    P=2δ2(1π)+2π(1+τ2)δ2hQ(1π2)δ3(1π)+πδ3(1+τ2) (5.1)
    Q=Ψ(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+(1π)ζRC](ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[Q(hch)(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))] (5.2)
    p=Υ24ζp2(ξ1+ξ2θc)[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax   )(plmin   )2]Υ2p2(ξ1+ξ2θc)[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax   )(plmin   )2] (5.3)
    θc=[ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)1Q(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc)]28ξ2θc1Q(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc)(pΨ)ξ2ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)1Q(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc)2ξ2θc1Q(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc) (5.4)

    See Appendix A for the calculations of first-order derivatives.

    5.1 proposition The expected total profit function is a convex at P, Q, p, θc if

    ψ<0

    ψχ>σ2

    ψ(χφϑ2)+ρ(σϑρχ)<σ(σφρϑ)

    ψ[χ(φτΩ2)ϑ(ϑτθΩ)+θ(ϑΩφθ)]+ρ[σ(ϑτθΩ)χ(ρτκΩ)+θ(ρθκϑ)]

    >σ[σ(φτΩ2)ϑ(ρτκΩ)+θ(ρΩκφ)]+κ[σ(ϑΩθφ)χ(ρΩκφ)+ϑ(ρθκϑ)].

    Proof. See Appendix B.

    Two numerical examples are given here to validate the model. Numerical data are taken from Sarkar and Bhuniya [1] and Malik and Sarkar [32]. Data have been modified due to the convergence of the algorithm.

    The mathematical model is tested numerically to validate the theoretical solution. The following input parametric values are considered to illustrate the numerical example. Here K = 5000 ($/setup); δ1 = 320; δ2 = 11,910; δ3 = 0.009; RC = 50 ($/unit); τ1 = -0.3; τ2 = 0.3; lmax = 900 ($/unit); lmin = 400 ($/unit); ξ1 = 20; ξ2 = 6; ξ3 = 500; hc = 25.01 ($/unit/unit time); h = 15.9($/unit/unit time); E[x] = 0.2; π = 0.05; R1 = 110 (units/year);

    The optimal result of decision variables are P = 908.55 (unit/year); Q = 573.53 (units/cycle); p = 496.02 ($/unit); θc = 6.35 ($/year), and the expected total profit (TEP) = 9,211.85 ($/year).

    The global optimality of the result is checked analytically as well as numerically. For the numerical test, values of principal minors are H11 = -0.00245769 <0; H22 = 0.0000577413 >0; H33 = -0.0000339684 <0; H44 = 0.00538134 >0.

    The input values for Example 2 are as follows: K = 500 ($/setup); δ1 = 320; δ2 = 900; δ3 = 0.02; RC = 100 ($/unit); τ1 = -0.3; τ2 = 0.3; lmax = 900 ($/unit); lmin = 400 ($/unit); ξ1 = 10; ξ2 = 3; ξ3 = 300; hc = 9 ($/unit/unit time); h = 0.1 ($/unit/unit time); E[x] = 0.62; π = 0.05; R1 = 50 (units/year).

    The optimal results of decision variables are P = 211.01 (unit/year); Q = 192.97 (units); p = 461.19 ($/unit); θc = 1.45 ($/year); and the expected total profit (TEP) is 4,321.14 ($/year).

    The global optimality of the result is checked analytically as well as numerically. For numerical test, H11 = -0.0146317 <0; H22 = 0.000360228 >0; H33 = -0.0000666809 <0; H44 = 0.00618225 >0 (Figures 35).

    Figure 3.  TEP versus variable production rate and production lot size.
    Figure 4.  TEP versus variable production rate and green investment.
    Figure 5.  TEP versus production lot size and green investment.

    Some special observations are examined and discussed here based on the proposed model. The actual results and comparative studies validate the present model.

    A special observation is made for the TEP for a fixed production rate instead of a VPR. Keeping the parametric values of Example 1 fixed and using the fixed production rate of P=200 units per year, the optimum outcomes are Q = 139.52 (units); p = 667.03 ($/unit); and TEP = 1,061.87 ($/year). Here the TEP is less than that of the proposed result. Hence, it can be concluded that a VPR is much better for the sustainable smart production system than a fixed production rate. Here, a statistical analysis is considered to achieve the results with confidence. The values of the principal minor are H11=0.109231<0 and H22=+0.0122797>0. Hence, the TEP is maximum as the signs of the Hessian are alternative in sign.

    Another special observation is made for the TEP for a fixed selling price and demand instead of a variable type. Keeping the parametric values of Example 1 fixed and using the fixed selling price of p=500 units per product and demand D=500 per year, the optimum outcomes are P = 1129.69 (units); q = 356.74 ($/unit); and TEP = 1963.49 ($/year).Here the TEP is less than the originally proposed model. Hence, it is concluded that variable selling price and variable demand are better for the sustainable smart production system than the fixed demand and selling price. Here, a statistical analysis is considered to achieve the results with confidence. The values of the principal minor are H11=0.00202357<0, H22=+0.0000757578>0. Hence, the TEP is maximum, as the values of the principal minors are alternate in sign.

    From the above numerical experiments and their special observations, it is concluded that the TEP is the maximum for the originally proposed model. All special observations are numerically expressed using MATHEMATICA 11.3.0 software. Even if the manager needs any constant selection mode between fixed production rate and fixed demand & selling price, the latter is more profitable. A thorough discussion of this study reveals that the variable production rate and variable selling price under variable demand increase the profit margins. Moreover, it is concluded that the proposed model makes a higher profit in both cases than in the other cases. Hence, the special observations help validate the original research idea.

    Remarkable observations for costs and scaling parameters are numerically calculated, and the changes in these parametric effects are described in Table 3 and Figure 6.

    Table 3.  Sensitivity analysis table.
    Parameters change (%) TEP (%) Parameters change (%) TEP (%)
    -50% +10.39 -50% +25.98
    -25% +05.04 -25% +11.17
    K +25% -49.77 h +25% -09.03
    +50% -51.48 +50% -45.75
    -50% +06.36 -50% +1.62
    -25% +03.16 -25% +0.31
    RC +25% -03.14 hc +25% -44.49
    +50% -06.26 +50% -1.50

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 6.  Effects of changes in parametric values versus expected total profit.

    Table 2 indicates how cost parameters and scaling parameters effects the expected total profit due to changes such as ( 50%, 25%, + 25%, + 50%). From the following sensitivity table, conclusions are as follows:

    1) Holding cost for new products is the most sensitive parameter with a notable impact on TEP. The TEP decreases when the holding cost increases and increases when the holding cost decreases. The table shows that to get a maximum profit, holding cost has a significant role.

    2) Second most sensitive parameter is the setup cost. It has a great impact on TEP. Decreasing the value of this parameter increases the TEP, and increasing its value decreases TEP. Thus the setup cost plays a vital role in TEP.

    3) Holding cost for reworked products affects TEP significantly. Thus, the holding cost for reworked products can not be ignored during the calculation of TEP.

    4) Reworking cost has little effect on the TEP. Though it does not play a vital role in calculating the TEP, its effect can not be ignored.

    The followings are the main insights of this study. The study is very relevant to the post-pandemic situation of the COVID-19 era. This study provides a few insights into a sustainable smart production system.

    1) As a smart production system is considered for the technological development of industry 4.0, the machine inspects automatically products. If the experimental value of inspection exceeds the threshold value of the machinery inspection, then those products are good. Then, other products are considered repairable. Defective products are repairable because the quality of the newly manufactured products is high, and thus the level of defectiveness is less. Thus, the reworking process for defective products is fruitful for a sustainable smart production system.

    2) Whenever the management concentrates on the reworking of process, it reduces the manufacturing cost along with disposal cost Most importantly, amid the post-COVID-19 pandemic era, price hiking is one of the most concerning economic problems. Reworking servers has two purposes. First, it helps to reduce the raw material use, and thus, the management can cut the raw material and post-processing cost. Second, job security and placement are the second most discussed topic in the post-pandemic situation. The reworking sector provides an opportunity for workers to work more and have job security.

    3) The concept of partial outsourcing helps to handle the entire situation for defective products and reworking. Besides, when some industries outsource, this outsourcing supports other industries. That gave back-and-forth support for interactive industries and helps them grow economically. This policy supports post-pandemic industry regression and price inflation.

    The market demand for a product highly fluctuated and volatile as it was depended on the selling price and rework process. Any minor changes in these factors would have an impact on the profit and revenue of the industry. This study considered selling price and green investment-dependent demand for smart products in a sustainable production system. The TEP for various cases was separately optimized using decision variables, both analytically and numerically. It was already proved that the sustainable smart production system could easily provide a significant profit with the facility of global outsourcing and reworking. In addition, depending on the variable customer demand, products can cover the entire competitive market with replacement, warranty, buyback, and reworking facilities. This model can be further extended by considering a demand that is a stock, discount, advertisement, promotion, and trade-credit-dependent (Mahapatra et al. [18]). In the future, this model can be expanded by preservative technology for deteriorating products (Sarkar et al. [50]). Alternatively, the production of green products may be considered, which is closely related to sustainable outsourcing (Rinaldi et al. [51], Ahi and Searcy [52]). A cost-effective subsidy policy, bio-fuels, and animal fat-based biodiesel may be considered for future extension (Garai and Sarkar [46]). In the future, this model can be expanded by considering. In the present COVID-19 situation, the global business procedure easily fulfills and satisfies customer demand through online or online shopping systems or e-supply chain management. Another direction for development is to incorporate the inspection cost and errors during the inspection and back-ordering cost.

    The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & In-novation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project number (IF-PSAU-2021/01/18925).

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    TEP(.)=TEP(P,Q,p,θc)

    The first order partial derivatives of the objective function with respect to the decision variables are

    TEP(.)P=1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[Q(δ2P2+δ3)(1π)+πQ(1+τ2)(δ2P2+δ3)+hQ2(1π2)2P2]TEP(.)Q=1Q2(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+(1π)ζRC+Q(hch)(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))]TEP(.)p=ξ1(lminlmax)(plmin)2[p1Q{K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2}]+(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax)(plmin)2]
    TEP(.)θc=1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc)+ξ2[p1Q{K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2}]

    where

    Ψ=1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]

    and

    Υ=pξ1(lminlmax)+p{ξ1(lmax+lmin)2ξ2θclmin}[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax)(plmin)2]ζ=ξ1(lminlmax)Ψ+lmin(ξ1lmax+2θcξ2lmin)[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax)(plmin)2].

    The second order partial derivatives of the objective functions with respect to the decision variables are

    2TEP(.)P2=(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)P3[2δ2(1π)+2(1+τ2)δ2hQ(1π2)]=ψ(say)2TEP(.)Q2=2Q3(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]+2(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)Q2[(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+(1π)ζRC+Q(hch)(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))](ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)Q[(hch)ζ2(1π)2R1+h(1D(1π2)P+ζ(1π)R1(2π))]=χ(say)2TEP(.)p2=2ξ1(lminlmax)(plmin)3[p1Q{K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2}]+2ξ1(lminlmax)(plmin)2[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax)(plmin)2]+(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)2hξ1Q(lminlmax)D2(plmin)3=φ(say)2TEP(.)θ2c=1Q(ξ3+hQ2ξ22D3)(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)ξ2Q(ξ3θchξ2Q22D2)=τ(say)2TEP(.)PQ=2TEP(.)QP=1Q2(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[Q(δ2P2+δ3)(1π)+πQ(1+τ2)(δ2P2+δ3)+hQ2(1π2)2P2]1Q(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)[(δ2P2+δ3)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ2P2+δ3)+hQ(1π2)P2]=σ(say)2TEP(.)Pp=2TEP(.)pP=ξ1Q(lminlmax)(plmin)2[Q(δ2P2+δ3)(1π)+πQ(1+τ2)(δ2P2+δ3)+hQ2(1π2)2P2]=ρ(say)2TEP(.)Pθc=2TEP(.)θcP=ξ2Q[Q(δ2P2+δ3)(1π)+πQ(1+τ2)(δ2P2+δ3)+hQ2(1π2)2P2]=κ(say)2TEP(.)Qp=2TEP(.)pQ=ξ1(lminlmax)(plmin)21Q2[K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2]ξ1Q(lminlmax)(plmin)2[(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+(1π)ζRC+(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2](ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)hξ1D2(lminlmax)(plmin)2=ϑ(say)2TEP(.)Qθc=2TEP(.)θcQ=(ξ3θcQ2+h2D2)(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)+ξ2Q2{K+Q(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+K(1+τ1)+Qπ(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+Q(1π)ζRC+Q2(hch)2(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ22(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))+ξ3θ2c2}ξ2Q[(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)(1π)+π(1+τ2)(δ1+δ2P+δ3P)+(1π)ζRC+Q(hch)(ζ2(1π)2R1)+hQ(1D(1π2P)+ζ(1π)R1(2π))]=θ(say)2TEP(.)pθc=2TEP(.)θcp=ξ1Q(hξ2Q22D2ξ3θc)(lminlmax)(plmin)2+ξ2[1hξ1QD2(lminlmax)(plmin)2]+(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)2hξ1ξ2QD3(lminlmax)(plmin)2=Ω(say)H11=2TEP(.)P2=(ξ1(lmaxp)(plmin)+ξ2θc)P3[2δ2(1π)+2(1+τ2)δ2hQ(1π2)]=ψH22=2TEP(.)P22TEP(.)PQ2TEP(.)QP2TEP(.)Q2=2TEP(.)P22TEP(.)Q2(2TEP(.)PQ)2=ψχσ2H33=2TEP(.)P22TEP(.)PQ2TEP(.)Pp2TEP(.)QP2TEP(.)Q22TEP(.)Qp2TEP(.)pP2TEP(.)pQ2TEP(.)p2=ψ(χφϑ2)σ(σφρϑ)+ρ(σϑρχ)H44=2TEP(.)P22TEP(.)PQ2TEP(.)Pp2TEP(.)Pθc2TEP(.)QP2TEP(.)Q22TEP(.)Qp2TEP(.)Qθc2TEP(.)pP2TEP(.)pQ2TEP(.)p22TEP(.)pθc2TEP(.)θcP2TEP(.)θcQ2TEP(.)θcp2TEP(.)θ2c=ψ[χ(φτΩ2)ϑ(ϑτθΩ)+θ(ϑΩφθ)]+ρ[σ(ϑτθΩ)χ(ρτκΩ)+θ(ρθκϑ)]σ[σ(φτΩ2)ϑ(ρτκΩ)+θ(ρΩκφ)]κ[σ(ϑΩθφ)χ(ρΩκφ)+ϑ(ρθκϑ)]
    [1] in The Hippocampus Book (eds. P. Andersen, R. Morris, D. Amaral, T. Bliss and J. O'Keefe), Oxford University Press, 2006, 9-36.
    [2] preprint, (2015).
    [3] Neuron, 82 (2014), 670-681.
    [4] J. Neurosci., 15 (1995), 47-60.
    [5] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101 (2004), 2560-2565.
    [6] Neuron, 43 (2004), 745-757.
    [7] Trends Neurosci., 37 (2014), 136-145.
    [8] Neuron, 22 (1999), 383-394.
    [9] Proc. Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design (FOCS), (1961), 34-38.
    [10] PLoS Comput. Biol., 9 (2013), e1002919.
    [11] Physiology (Bethesda), 25 (2010), 319-329.
    [12] Hippocampus, 20 (2010), 423-446.
    [13] Wiley, New York, NY, 1968.
    [14] P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95 (1998), 3182-3187.
    [15] J. Comput. Neurosci., 15 (2003), 5-17.
    [16] 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley Professional, 1994.
    [17] Proc. of AIP Conf., 1510 (2013), 101-119.
    [18] Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 51 (2006), 1575-1583.
    [19] Nat. Neurosci., 8 (2005), 1667-1676.
    [20] Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 9 (2008), 813-825.
    [21] Curr. Opin. Neurobiol., 19 (2009), 544-552.
    [22] Neural. Comput., 20 (2008), 1717-1731.
    [23] 2000. Available from: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/download.php?file_id=24016.
    [24] Nat. Neurosci., 3 (2000), 895-903.
    [25] B. Math. Biophys., 5 (1943), 115-133.
    [26] Neuroscience, 102 (2001), 527-540.
    [27] Neuron, 80 (2013), 765-774.
    [28] Neuroscience, 111 (2002), 553-566.
    [29] SFN Meeting Planner, 11 (2010), p56.
    [30] Front Comput. Neurosci., 6 (2012), p57.
    [31] arXiv:1312.1206, (2013).
    [32] Front Comput. Neurosci., 6 (2012), p71.
    [33] Science, 297 (2002), 359-365.
    [34] J. Physiol., 548 (2003), 245-258.
    [35] PLoS Comput. Biol., 10 (2014), e1003648.
    [36] Hippocampus, 4 (1994), 374-391.
    [37] Neural Comput., 24 (2012), 2873-2899.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Regina Sisika A. Sonthanasamy, Nik Muslihuddin Nik Sulaiman, Ling Ling Tan, Azwan Mat Lazim, Comprehensive spectroscopic studies of synergism between Gadong starch based carbon dots and bovine serum albumin, 2019, 218, 13861425, 85, 10.1016/j.saa.2019.03.108
    2. Vedashree V. Sirdeshmukh, Harshika R. Apte, Anup A. Kale, 2019, Graphene Quantum Dots as promising probes in electrochemical immunoassay for rapid and sensitive detection of pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus, 978-1-7281-6649-0, 108, 10.1109/NANOMED49242.2019.9130608
    3. Fan Lu, Yeling Yang, Yucheng Liu, Fubing Wang, Xinghu Ji, Zhike He, Point-of-care testing (POCT) of patients with a high concentration of uric acid by using alginate hydrogel microspheres embedded with CdZnTeS QDs and urate oxidase (Alg@QDs-UOx MSs), 2021, 146, 0003-2654, 949, 10.1039/D0AN02029J
    4. Daniel Oliveira, Fernando Menegatti de Melo, Henrique E. Toma, One-pot single step to label microtubule with MPA-capped CdTe quantum dots, 2018, 108, 09684328, 19, 10.1016/j.micron.2018.03.002
    5. Ricardo Cervantes-Jiménez, Lino Sánchez-Segura, Laura Elena Estrada-Martínez, Antonio Topete-Camacho, Elizabeth Mendiola-Olaya, Abraham Noé Rosas-Escareño, Carlos Saldaña-Gutiérrez, Mónica Eugenia Figueroa-Cabañas, José Luis Dena-Beltrán, Aarón Kuri-García, Alejandro Blanco-Labra, Teresa García-Gasca, Quantum Dot Labelling of Tepary Bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) Lectins by Microfluidics, 2020, 25, 1420-3049, 1041, 10.3390/molecules25051041
    6. Ewelina Guszpit, Pavel Kopel, Soňa Křížková, Halina Milnerowicz, Preliminary analysis of the interactions between CdTe quantum dots and human metallothionein, 2018, 170, 09277765, 447, 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.06.045
    7. Di Su, Xin Wang, Wen Zhang, Ping Li, Bo Tang, Fluorescence imaging for visualizing the bioactive molecules of lipid peroxidation within biological systems, 2022, 146, 01659936, 116484, 10.1016/j.trac.2021.116484
    8. Sisi Yang, Fan Lu, Yucheng Liu, Yu Ning, Songbai Tian, Pengfei Zuo, Xinghu Ji, Zhike He, Quantum dots-based hydrogel microspheres for visual determination of lactate and simultaneous detection coupled with microfluidic device, 2021, 171, 0026265X, 106801, 10.1016/j.microc.2021.106801
    9. Fan Lu, Sisi Yang, Yu Ning, Fubing Wang, Xinghu Ji, Zhike He, A fluorescence color card for point-of-care testing (POCT) and its application in simultaneous detection, 2021, 146, 0003-2654, 5074, 10.1039/D1AN01035B
    10. Chuanchen Wu, Yuantao Mao, Xin Wang, Ping Li, Bo Tang, Deep-Tissue Fluorescence Imaging Study of Reactive Oxygen Species in a Tumor Microenvironment, 2022, 94, 0003-2700, 165, 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c03104
    11. Nhi Le, Min Zhang, Kyoungtae Kim, Quantum Dots and Their Interaction with Biological Systems, 2022, 23, 1422-0067, 10763, 10.3390/ijms231810763
    12. Aishan Zheng, Han Liu, Xiaonan Gao, Kehua Xu, Bo Tang, A Mitochondrial-Targeting Near-Infrared Fluorescent Probe for Revealing the Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide And Heavy Metal Ions on Viscosity, 2021, 93, 0003-2700, 9244, 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c01511
    13. Likius Shipwiisho Daniel, Salatiel Kapofi, Martha Kandawa-Schulz, Habauka Majority Kwaambwa, Interactions of CdSe Nanocrystals with Cationic Proteins Extracted from Moringa oleifera Seeds, 2024, 4, 2673-7256, 24, 10.3390/photochem4010003
    14. Vedashree Sirdeshmukh, Mamta Gandhi, Harish Joshi, Preeti Nigam Joshi, Anup Kale, 2023, Point of Care Electrochemical Aptasensor for Early Screening of Pancreatic Cancer, 979-8-3503-4370-0, 83, 10.1109/NANOMED59780.2023.10405174
    15. Abhishu Chand, Nhi Le, Kyoungtae Kim, CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dots’ Impact on In Vitro Actin Dynamics, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 4179, 10.3390/ijms25084179
    16. 2024, 9781394253944, 205, 10.1002/9781394253975.ref
    17. ​Agni Puentes Ossa, Diego Julian Rodriguez, Julian Andres Salamanca Bernal, Computational Modeling of Light Scattering in Polymer Nanoparticles for Optical Characterization, 2024, 34, 1909-7735, 63, 10.18359/rcin.7276
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2819) PDF downloads(485) Cited by(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog