Research article Special Issues

Axiomatic analysis of state operators in Sheffer stroke BCK-algebras associated with algorithmic approaches

  • In this paper, we have presented a novel exploration of the construction of Riečan, Bosbach, internal, and general states within the framework of Sheffer stroke BCK-algebra B. We highlighted the originality of our work by examining key characteristics and the independence of the axiomatic systems associated with these states. Notably, we demonstrated that a Riečan state can correspond to a Bosbach state and vice versa, revealing significant interconnections between these concepts. Additionally, we introduced the innovative concepts of faithful and fixed sets generated by internal states on B, proving that each Sheffer stroke BCK-algebra retains its structure under an internal state. Our investigation also included internal state-(filters, compatible filters, and prime filters) on B and their related results, as well as the relationship between internal state congruence and filters. Furthermore, we explore whether general states imply Riečan and Bosbach states, enhancing our understanding of these relationships. Finally, we introduced the concept of general state-morphism and discuss its implications for B. To support our findings, we provided compelling examples and fundamental algorithms, underscoring the practical significance of our study across various fields including artificial intelligence, computer science, and quantum logic.

    Citation: Ibrahim Senturk, Tahsin Oner, Duygu Selin Turan, Gozde Nur Gurbuz, Burak Ordin. Axiomatic analysis of state operators in Sheffer stroke BCK-algebras associated with algorithmic approaches[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 1555-1588. doi: 10.3934/math.2025072

    Related Papers:

    [1] Subramanian Muthaiah, Dumitru Baleanu, Nandha Gopal Thangaraj . Existence and Hyers-Ulam type stability results for nonlinear coupled system of Caputo-Hadamard type fractional differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 168-194. doi: 10.3934/math.2021012
    [2] Cuiying Li, Rui Wu, Ranzhuo Ma . Existence of solutions for Caputo fractional iterative equations under several boundary value conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 317-339. doi: 10.3934/math.2023015
    [3] Samy A. Harisa, Chokkalingam Ravichandran, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Nashat Faried, Ahmed Morsy . New exploration of operators of fractional neutral integro-differential equations in Banach spaces through the application of the topological degree concept. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 15741-15758. doi: 10.3934/math.2022862
    [4] Abdulwasea Alkhazzan, Wadhah Al-Sadi, Varaporn Wattanakejorn, Hasib Khan, Thanin Sitthiwirattham, Sina Etemad, Shahram Rezapour . A new study on the existence and stability to a system of coupled higher-order nonlinear BVP of hybrid FDEs under the p-Laplacian operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14187-14207. doi: 10.3934/math.2022782
    [5] Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Suliman Alsaeed, Kalimuthu Kaliraj, Chokkalingam Ravichandran, Wedad Albalawi, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty . Existence criteria for fractional differential equations using the topological degree method. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21914-21928. doi: 10.3934/math.20231117
    [6] Ahmed Alsaedi, Fawziah M. Alotaibi, Bashir Ahmad . Analysis of nonlinear coupled Caputo fractional differential equations with boundary conditions in terms of sum and difference of the governing functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8314-8329. doi: 10.3934/math.2022463
    [7] Mengyu Wang, Xinmin Qu, Huiqin Lu . Ground state sign-changing solutions for fractional Laplacian equations with critical nonlinearity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 5028-5039. doi: 10.3934/math.2021297
    [8] Mohammad Esmael Samei, Lotfollah Karimi, Mohammed K. A. Kaabar . To investigate a class of multi-singular pointwise defined fractional q–integro-differential equation with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7781-7816. doi: 10.3934/math.2022437
    [9] Hui Huang, Kaihong Zhao, Xiuduo Liu . On solvability of BVP for a coupled Hadamard fractional systems involving fractional derivative impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19221-19236. doi: 10.3934/math.20221055
    [10] Rui Wu, Yi Cheng, Ravi P. Agarwal . Rotational periodic solutions for fractional iterative systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11233-11245. doi: 10.3934/math.2021651
  • In this paper, we have presented a novel exploration of the construction of Riečan, Bosbach, internal, and general states within the framework of Sheffer stroke BCK-algebra B. We highlighted the originality of our work by examining key characteristics and the independence of the axiomatic systems associated with these states. Notably, we demonstrated that a Riečan state can correspond to a Bosbach state and vice versa, revealing significant interconnections between these concepts. Additionally, we introduced the innovative concepts of faithful and fixed sets generated by internal states on B, proving that each Sheffer stroke BCK-algebra retains its structure under an internal state. Our investigation also included internal state-(filters, compatible filters, and prime filters) on B and their related results, as well as the relationship between internal state congruence and filters. Furthermore, we explore whether general states imply Riečan and Bosbach states, enhancing our understanding of these relationships. Finally, we introduced the concept of general state-morphism and discuss its implications for B. To support our findings, we provided compelling examples and fundamental algorithms, underscoring the practical significance of our study across various fields including artificial intelligence, computer science, and quantum logic.



    Nowadays most business providers use inventory theory in order to provide their clients with the goods they require while increasing their percentage of profit and increasing their customer base. Inventory theory focuses on controlling inventory levels of commodities in order to satisfy consumer demand. The majority of models have systems in place to look for answers to two key questions. The first is the appropriate time to place an order that increases the inventory level, and the second is the appropriate order quantity. The assumptions they make about cost structure, demand, and the physical properties of the policy are what give them their complexity. Since each company's circumstances are different and have specific characteristics and restrictions, there is no universal answer for all inventory models, and there are a lot of different models that might be used. This is dependent on several assumptions made about important factors including demand, costs, and the actual structure of the policy.

    In this paper, we consider the stochastic inventory model where demand is seen as stochastic. Our aim is to select a set of m best policies with the minimum cost. The holding, ordering, and shortage costs make up the total cost of the model. The complexity of this problem comes from the stochastic nature of the problem which requires a huge amount of computer simulation to get estimates of the average total cost. However, when the computational budget is limited, the available computation needs to be distributed in a clever way in order to get the correct selection. Moreover, we are also interested in measuring the final solution, thus the expected opportunity cost is used to assess the quality of the solution obtained.

    In order to solve this problem and find the optimal policy or a set of optimal policies in cases where there is a limited computation budget is available to be distributed on different policies, then rather than distributing the computations evenly, the optimal computing budget allocation procedure is used to select a subset of optimal policies, Chen et al. [1,2]. Therefore, the policies that have more impact on the solution will be given more computation, but at the same time, we do not neglect the other policies. Kim and Nelson [3], claim that stochastic simulation can be used for establishing the measure of performance for every policy in simulation. The statistical selection methods are utilized to choose the best possible policy or a set of the best policies out of a limited number of options. In order to assess the selection quality, one needs to use some metrics because the simulation techniques being employed have a chance to make an unsuitable selection. There are two measures:

    (1) The probability of Correct selection, (P(CS)) in which correct selection signifies the best possible simulated policy, selected out of a large but finite set of alternatives Chen et al. [1,2]. However, this measure is not always appropriate because it computes the percentage of selecting correct policies rather than their cost, so it deals with near-optimal solutions same as the worst policy.

    (2) The second measure is the expected opportunity cost, (E(OC)) for a potentially incorrect selection, opportunity cost here is the difference between the total cost of the actual best policy and the total cost of the selected policy, Chick and Inoue [4,5], Chick and Wu [6]. Therefore, near-optimal solutions have a small impact on wrong selection and the measure is more realistic.

    The aim of this study is to utilize the second measure which is the estimated opportunity cost as a criterion for the quality of choosing the best m stochastic inventory policies. This aim is challenging to achieve since only a small class of performance indicators can be numerically evaluated, and using simulation to determine this value is expensive and consumes more time, particularly when considering large number of policies. Gao and Chen [7] have put a framework for selection procedures based on the expected opportunity cost, Gao et al. [8] have developed an approach to select the best out of a finite set of alternatives based on the expected opportunity cost and compare the E(OC) with the P(SC) and show that they are asymptotically equivalent. We will adapt the procedure of Gao et al. [8] and modify it to solve the stochastic inventory problem and use it to select a subset of the best stochastic inventory models on a finite horizon. Most of the previous procedures for selecting the best inventory model(s) use the P(CS) rather than E(OC). Gao et al. [9] have developed a subset selection using regression metamodel. Almomani et al. [10,11] proposed a combined statistical procedure measured by E(OC). Almomani and Alrefaei [12] provide a sequential approach for choosing a subset which is comprised of efficient designs. The OCBA has gained attention recently, see Al-Salem et al. [13]. Almomani et al. [14] studied stopping rules for selecting the optimal solution, Alrefaei et al. [15] provided an approximation of the probability of correct selection. For a recent review of methods used for selecting Xu et al. [16].

    While more modern procedures help to minimize the E(OC) and have gained importance in many applications, conventional selection approaches detect the best possible policy with higher probability by maximizing P(CS). The likelihood of making a bad choice will be reduced by these new selection techniques. Our goal in this paper is to use statistical selection techniques to resolve the inventory management issue. We provide a method for allocating the computing budget for choosing an adequate m inventory policy and evaluating the effectiveness of the choice using the estimated opportunity cost E(OC).

    The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we formulate the stochastic inventory problem, and details the background on the stochastic inventory models. In Section 3 we present the method for selecting the best m policies using the optimal computing budget allocation approach in terms of the expected opportunity cost. Section 4 contains a numerical example of a stochastic inventory model. Finally, Section 5 concludes the study.

    In this section, we present the formulation of the problem that we consider in this paper which is the stochastic inventory model (s,S) with periodic review. We first introduce some used notations:

    (s,S): is the stochastic inventory model;

    I: the inventory level;

    s: the inventory level at which and order is placed;

    S: the largest inventory level;

    OCBA: the optimal computing budget allocation;

    OCBAm: the optimal computing budget allocation for selecting the best m policies;

    EOC: the expected opportunity cost;

    TC(i): the total cost for policy i;

    Θ: the set of all policies;

    k: the total number of policies;

    T: the total number of simulation replications;

    Yit: the output of the tth simulation replication for policy i;

    Yi: the actual mean of policy i;

    ¯Yi: the sample mean of policy i;

    σ2i: the variance of policy i;

    Ni: the number of simulation replications for policy i;

    i: the true best policy;

    b: the policy with smallest sample mean;

    δi=ˉYic, where c is a constant between the best and the next best policy;

    αi=δi/σi.

    In the stochastic inventory model (s,S), it is assumed that the demand is stochastic. When the inventory level I is reduced below or equal to a reordering point s, an order of SI is made, and the cost of doing so is known as the ordering cost. When a demand occurs and the level I reduces to zero, a shortage occurs, and a cost is therefore imposed called the shortage cost. To reduce overall costs, there must be a balance between the holding cost, the price of keeping a stocked inventory and other costs. The resultant problem is a stochastic optimization problem and simulation is used to determine the estimated total cost. The goals of the inventory management problem are to make it more productive by making a balance between accomplishing things quickly but more expensively, and slowly but cheaply. Such a plan would include the best inventory management practices, which would lower the total cost of ordering, holding, and inventory shortage. The stochastic inventory problem (s,S) is written as:

     miniΘTC(i) (2.1)

    where TC(i) is the total cost of policy i, and Θ is the set of all policies in (s,S).

    One of the most important elements in managing uncertainty in inventory is the demand. In case the demand is random, but probability distribution is known for the demand, we may use basic mathematical reasoning to derive the best distributional strategies. Finding the right probability distribution of demand to suit the model is the most crucial phase in the process. There is a widespread belief that distinct demand events take place separately. A Poisson distribution is the most typical distribution for the magnitude of the demand over a certain length of time. The interval between two successive requests may be distributed normally. For the time period of demand, other distributions such as the uniform distribution and the exponential distribution may also be employed. It is crucial to concentrate on how the starting inventory level and the amount of demand throughout a given time relate to one another.

    An excess occurs when there is still some inventory following a request because the demand is lower than the quantity of supply. But if demand exceeds supply, there will be a stock shortfall, leading to incomplete demand; this is referred to as a shortage. Uncertainty about demand will be taken into account in stochastic inventory models. Continual or periodic review is used to divide stochastic inventory models into two categories to restock the inventory the next time frame. It is decided how much to order in the next period after determining its current inventory level after the conclusion of the previous session.

    Our focus will be on a single item that is subject to periodic review, complete backlog, and random lead times, with K as the ordering cost for set-up and u for cost per item. Backlog is considered to have a shortage cost of π per item per unit of time and a holding cost of one item per period of time is h. The product has multi-modal distribution per demand, while the time in demand is independent, and λ rate denotes the identically distributed exponential random variables. Initial inventory level I is where the inventory level begins. According to the demand in the final period, inventories will gradually decrease over time.

    The inventory level is recalculated at the conclusion of each period to decide whether or not a fresh order is required at the start of the subsequent period. When a certain demand arises, we compare the demand values to the stock available during the time. If the demand value is greater than the stock quantity, a defect or inventory shortage occurs. Otherwise, there is a surplus rather than a shortage. We place an order at the conclusion of this period if I is below the necessary level; otherwise, there is no need to do so. The inventory model (s,S) is depicted in Figure 1, see Debadyuti [17].

    Figure 1.  The (s,S) inventory model.

    The order quantity in mathematical terms is written as,

    Z={SIifI<s0ifIs},

    the inventory level during the start of the period is given by I.

    The ordering, holding, and shortage costs are added together to get the total cost. The order cost is K+uZ if Z items are ordered, here K defines the setup (fixed) cost that is constant and u is the incremental cost per item. With π as shortage cost per period per item, the shortage cost is equal to πˉI, where the area under the curve of demand is given by ˉI when a shortage occurs divided by the total period. hˉI+, is holding cost with h is the cost of holding one item in one period of time, ˉI+ is the area under the demand curve in normal mode (with items in inventory level) divided by the total period. Thus, the total cost is estimated using the following expression:

    TC=(K+uZ)+πˉI+hˉI+. (2.2)

    In this section, we discuss how to select a subset of best m policies of the stochastic (s,S) inventory model. We first introduce the optimal Computing Budget Allocation (OCBAm) approach that will be used to select the optimal subset. Then, we discuss the expected opportunity cost EOCm that will be used as a quality measure of the selection. Then we present the algorithm that will be used for the subset selection.

    Consider a situation where a finite amount of computing resources must be divided across many alternative strategies in order to assess each one's performance and identify the one that performs the best. It is not a good idea to spend a lot of simulation time on particular policies since they often have little effect on the final outcome. The optimum computing budget allocation method, put out by Chen et al. [18], divides the available budget among the policies in accordance with how they would affect the outcome. More examples of the proposed policies than the other policies will be provided. See Chen [19], Banks [20], Pedrielli et al. [21] and Goodwin et al. [22].

    Consider k stochastic policies with means Yi, i=1,,k, Chen et al.[1,2] provided the OCBAm approach for selecting the suitable m policy. It is assumed that T (the total computation) is known in advance, they frame the problem to maximize P(CSm) subject to the total number of samples, where CSm stands for the best m policies are selected. This problem is defined as follows Chen et al.[1,2]:

    maxN1,,NkP(CSm),s.t.ki=1Ni=T, (3.1)

    where the total computational budget available is given by T, the number of competent policies is k, and the number of simulation samples to policy i is given by Ni. For each policy i, Yit is the tth simulation sample where t=1,,Ni. To estimate the mean value Yi, let ˉYi=1NiNij=1Yit be the mean estimate for policy i. Assume that the mean of {ˉY1,ˉY2,,ˉYk} be ordered as ˉYi1ˉYi2ˉYik. Then, the subset Sm={i1,i2,,im} will be selected. P(CSm) is the probability that Sm is comprised of best actual m policies, that is maxiSmYiminiSmYi, with Yi defines the mean (unknown) of policy i.

    Alrefaei et al. [23] in their research have approximated ''The Asymptotic Probability of Correct Selection", APCSm and have shown that it is maximized if for every i,j policies with ij,

    Niσ2i/δ2i=Njσ2j/δ2j (3.2)

    where δi=ˉYic and c is a constant between Yim and Yim+1, we should mention also that the relation between Ni and Nj has been shown by Chen et al. [2]. Further it can be noted that, for a fixed s index, we have Nsσ2s/δ2s=Njσ2j/δ2j,j=1,,k. Hence we get, Nj=σ2jδ2jδ2sσ2sNs=α2sα2jNs, recall that αj=δj/σj. Therefore,

    α2iNi=α2sNs,i=1,k. (3.3)

    As jΘNj=T, we get jΘα2sα2jNs=T.

    For facilitating the computation, assume Ds=jΘα2sα2j and Dj=α2s/α2j. Therefore, the number of samples for each policy are given by

    Ns=T/DsNj=DjNs,jΘ,js. (3.4)

    More details on the OCBAm approach can be found in Chen and Lee [24], Gao and Chen [7], Gao et al. [8], Gao et al. [9], Lin et al. [25], Fu et al. [26] and Zhou et al. [27].

    The E(OC) has grown in importance in several commercial and engineering applications, which has resulted in a newly developed selection methodology in an effort to lower the opportunity cost (OC) of a potentially inaccurate selection. In the presence of simulation, the OC represents the difference between the mean of the actual best policy and the mean of the selected unknown policy. OC=YbYi, with b representing the policy with the smallest sample mean and i is the actual best policy. In case the best policy is selected correctly, the opportunity cost becomes zero. Therefore,

    OC=YbYi={=0;b=i0;bi.

    The expected opportunity cost, E(OC) is the expected value E(OC)=E(YbYi). In general, N1,N2,,Nn is chosen for minimizing the E(OC), given that the total budget of computing is limited. It was also argued by He et al. [28] that computing E(OC) is expensive, but there is a need to reduce the E(OC). This was also discussed in other studies by Gupta and Miescke [29], Chick and Inoue [4], Chick and Inoue [5], Chick and Wu [6] and Xiao et al. [30] all covered a review on OC. We may get the OC by utilizing the estimated values of the unknown means as it is the variance between the unknown means. In our study, the OC was determined by taking the sample mean of the final inventory policy costs once the simulation is completed.

    Algorithm (1) below uses the OCBAm based on E(OC) for selecting a set of m best stochastic inventory policies.

    To estimate E(OCm), we conducted an experiment on a generic example of the stochastic inventory model with artificial data. In this experiment, an inventory model with various parameter values is solved using the OCBAm technique. The stochastic inventory model with periodic review (s,S) inventory model was employed in this experiment. When a single item is under a periodic review, random lead and full backlog times (distributed uniformly between periods- 0.5 and 1.0), with on-hand inventory ($1 per item per period), ordering cost (which includes $32 per order set-up cost fixed and a $3 per item incremental cost), along with the backlog cost ($5 per item per period). Demand items quantity in every demand is categorized as 1,2,3, and 4, with 1/6,1/3,1/3, and 1/6, probabilities respectively, and the duration between demands is considered to be an identically distributed, independent, exponential random variable.

    Using Algorithm (1), the goal is to find the m inventory policies with the lowest overall cost in order to choose the optimal inventory policies. The E(OCm) is what we use to gauge how well the algorithm is working. Additionally, reducing E(OCm) is desirable. The algorithm is implemented under a specific parameter setting. It is assumed that number of best selected inventory policies m=3 and the number of inventory policies n=10 with policies: (si,Si)= {(20,60), (40,60), (30,70), (40,70), (20,80), (60,80), (20,90), (30,90), (50,90), (40,100)}. First, a simulation is run for every policy. The actual best policies are (20,60),(30,70), and (20,80) for this experiment.

    Algorithm 1 (OCBAm Algorithm)
    Require:
        "The number of initial simulation samples t05.
        The number of samples to be distributed over the set of policies in each iteration Δ.
        Let l=0, where l represents iteration index.
        Set R the size of the inner loop (the maximum number of replications of the OCBAm inside each iteration), and let r=0.
        Determine the total available budget TT, let TT=0.
        Let N0i=t0 for each iΘ,
        let T=iΘNri.
        for iΘ do
            Take a random samples of t0 observations Yij (1jt0)
            Compute ¯Yi and s2i as; ¯Yi=1NriNrij=1Yij and s2i=1Nri1Nrij=1(Yij¯Yi)2
        end for
        while T<TT do
            for iΘ do
                Let TT+Δ
                Compute Nr+1i using Equation(3.4) based on the new budget T.
                Perform additional max{0,Nr+1iNri} simulation samples for policy i.
                Compute the new sample means and variances for policy i.
            end for
            let rr+1
            if r<R then
                Take random samples of Nri observations Yij (1jNri)
                Compute the sample mean ¯Yi and sample variance s2i
            end if
        end while
        Sort the policies in Θ based on their sample mean ¯Yi and select the best m policies as the set containing the best m policies."

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    For this experiment, we utilized a total budget of T=500, a simulated sample increment of Δ=10, and the size of the initial sample t0=5. This experiment concluded with 10 replications for choosing the top 3 inventory policies. The results are shown in Table 1. The "Best Policies" from the table refer to three policies of the inventory which are chosen by the algorithm as the optimal option. With "TCm" to be the mean total cost of the actual best policies which are (20,60),(30,70), and (20,80). The value "TCOCBAm" is the estimated mean average of the total cost of the three selected policies by the proposed algorithm. Hence, E(OCm)=|TCmTCOCBAm|. Here, we use the absolute value to calculate the E(OCm) since our target is the difference between TCm and TCOCBAm not which one is the largest; note that in some replications it can be that the TCOCBAm is larger than TCm and vice versa.

    Table 1.  Numerical illustration for n=10,m=3,t0=5,Δ=10,T=500.
    BestPolicies TCm TCOCBAm E(OCm) P(CSm)
    {(30,70),(60,80),(20,80)} 224.6602761024 224.6602761118 9.4×109 0.33
    {(20,60),(30,70),(20,90)} 198.0321542458 198.0321542546 8.8×109 0.67
    {(20,60),(30,70),(20,80)} 196.9874251246 196.9874251246 0 1
    {(20,60),(30,70),(40,60)} 201.0655714875 201.0655714865 1.0×109 0.67
    {(40,60),(20,90),(20,80)} 212.5047481235 212.5047481242 7.0×1010 0.33
    {(20,90),(20,80),(30,70)} 205.6635890148 205.6635890117 3.1×109 0.67
    {(20,60),(30,70),(20,80)} 197.4827540245 197.4827540245 0 1
    {(20,80),(30,90),(40,70)} 220.6321670147 220.6321670133 1.4×109 0.33
    {(20,60),(20,80),(30,70)} 196.1215874578 196.1215874578 0 1
    {(20,60),(30,70),(40,70)} 203.7655534821 203.7655534898 7.7×109 0.67
    Average measure 3.21×109 0.67

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 1, in the first replication, the algorithm selects inventory policies (30, 70), (60, 80) and (20, 80), with the calculated average of the total cost for selected policies is 224.6602761118. It means that we get the minimum total cost in this replication when the inventory policies are (si,Si)= {(30, 70), (60, 80), (20, 80)}, note that the policies (30, 70) and (60, 80) do not belong to the actual 3 best inventory policies where the policy (20, 80) belongs to the actual best subset of policies, therefore using the probability of correct selection measure implies that P(CSm)=0.33 which is too small. However, the expected E(OCm) here is 9.4×109, obviously the average total cost for the three policies chosen by Algorithm 1 is close to the average total cost for the best three policies. which means that using the E(OCm) measure gives a better indication of the selected subset. The average values of the estimated P(CSm) and E(OCm) over 10 replications are given in the last row. As seen in this row the E(OCm) gives better indication about the elected subset than the P(CSm) measure. The experiment given above is extended for hundred replications. The outcomes depict that on average the opportunity cost expected for choosing three policies is E(OCm)=3.5×109, which is close to 0. Figure 2 demonstrates the E(OCm) values when the experiment is conducted with 100 replications.

    Figure 2.  The E(OCm) for 10 inventory policies to select 3 policies over 100 replications.

    As we examine the impact of the initial sample size t0 on Algorithm (1), it is important to keep in mind that if t0 is too small, there is a risk of receiving inaccurate early estimates of the overall cost. If the size is large, we can devote more computational time to unrelated policies, hence a balance value of t0 should be considered for getting a better outcome. Algorithm 1 is implemented with Δ=10 on different values of t0=5,10 and 20. The total budget, for t0 values over 100 replications for the average E(OCm) over the 100 replications is shown in Figure 3. From the graph, it is clear that for any value of t0 the algorithm performs well and gives a very small value of E(OCm) and for t0=20, the E(OCm) is very close to zero.

    Figure 3.  The average E(OCm) and t0 for n=10,m=3,Δ=10 over 100 replications.

    If Δ is large, then most of the computation time is lost on the sampling solution which does not affect the best selection. To see the effect the value of Δ on the performance of the algorithm we implement it on several values including Δ= 10,20 and 40. The results are shown in Figure 4. It is obvious that the algorithm performs well for all values of Δ but gives some preferences to Δ=40 at which the E(OCm) approaches zero.

    Figure 4.  The average of E(OCm) and Δ for n=10,m=3,t0=10 over 100 replications.

    Now we increase the number of inventory policies to n=40, these are: (si,Si)= {(20,40), (20,50), (30,50), (30,60), (20,70), (50,70), (30,80), (40,80), (50,80), (40,90), (60,90), (70,90), (20,100), (30,100), (50,100), (60,100), (70,100), (80,100), (20,110), (30,110), (40,110), (50,110), (60,110), (70,110), (80,110), (90,110), (20,120), (30,120), (40,120), (50,120), (60,120), (70,120), (80,120), (90,120), (100,120), (20,130), (30,130), (40,130), (50,130), (60,130)}. We seek to select the subset of 5 best policies, m=5. The actual best 5 policies for this experiment are: (20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50) and (30,60). Apply Algorithm 1 to select the top 5 inventory policies. We investigate how the algorithm's performance is impacted by the simulation parameters, including initial sample size t0 and the increase in simulation samples Δ. We assume the given budget is T=2500 that need to distributed among all the policies to select the best 5. We first run the algorithm when Δ=20, and t0=10, Table 2 lists the experimental results, with 10 replicates for selecting the top 5 inventory policies.

    Table 2.  Numerical illustration for n=40,m=5,t0=10,Δ=20,T=2500.
    BestPolicies TCm TCOCBAm E(OCm) P(CSm)
    {(20,40),(20,50),(40,80),(30,50),(30,60)} 173.532632 174.610776 1.078144 0.8
    {(20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 168.687012 168.687012 0 1.0
    {(20,40),(20,110),(20,70),(30,100),(30,60)} 175.987590 175.103955 0.883635 0.6
    {((20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 171.611012 171.611012 0 1.0
    {(20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 166.978354 166.978354 0 1.0
    {(50,80),(40,90),(50,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 199.28564244 203.19795356 3.912311 0.4
    {(20,40),(20,50),(40,120),(30,50),(30,60)} 148.925846 148.462369 0.463477 0.8
    {(20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 169.434658 169.434658 0 1.0
    {(20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50),(30,60)} 173.625413 173.625413 0 1.0
    {(20,40),(20,130),(20,70),(60,90),(30,60)} 193.724587 195.343654 1.619067 0.6
    Average measure 0.795663 0.82

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As we have seen in the first example, the expected opportunity cost gives a better measure for the selected subset than the probability of correct selection. The average over 10 replications is given the in last row, E(OCm)=0.795663 and P(CSm)=0.82. We run the experiment for one hundred replicates. The experimental outcomes reveal that the average value of the expected opportunity cost for selecting 5 inventory policies is E(OCm)=0.9420510355. Figure 5 shows E(OCm) values for the 100 replications.

    Figure 5.  The average value of E(OCm) for selecting m=5 policies from n=40 inventory policies over 100 replications.

    To see the impact of the parameters t0 and Δ on the algorithm, it is first conducted for several values of t0 including t0=10,20 and 40. Figure 6 displays the average value E(OCm) against the total budget spent over the 100 replications. It is clear that the average value of E(OCm) approaches zero as the number of computational budgets increases for all values of t0.

    Figure 6.  The performance of the algorithm for several values of t0 where n=40,m=5,Δ=20 over 100 replications.

    Now the algorithm is conducted using several values of Δ including Δ= 10,20 and 40 for selecting the best 5 inventory policies, and the results are shown in Figure 7. Again we see that the average value E(OCm) approaches zero as the computational budget increases for all values of Δ. Therefore, we conclude that the algorithm is robust.

    Figure 7.  The performance of the algorithm for several values of Δ where n=40,m=5,t0=20 over 100 replications.

    It is further noted that in the second experiment there were 40 policies, it was observed that the performance of this method is comparatively worse as compared to the first experiment, 10-policies from E(OCm) contexts of incorrect selection. It is because in the 40-policies experiment we use the Algorithm (1) to select 5 inventory policies and if anyone from these 5 policies does not belong to the actual best set of policies; (20,40),(20,50),(20,70),(30,50) and (30,60), this means the selection will be considered as an incorrect selection. However, from the two experiments, 10-policies and 40-policies, it was observed that Algorithm (1) performed better in selecting the best m inventory policies with minimum E(OCm), with the different parametric settings.

    In this study, we discussed how to select a subset of the best policies with the minimum total cost of a stochastic inventory management problem. The total costs includes the ordering, handling and shortage cost. The optimal computing budget allocation OCBAm approach is used for selecting the best m inventory policies in the context of the expected opportunity cost E(OCm) as a measure of quality. The OCBAm is implemented on an inventory model using different parameter settings and compared with the probability of correct selection P(CSm) measure. It is clear that the algorithm is robust as it gives good solutions over a wide range of the initial sample size t0 and the increment in each step, Δ, but of course, the selection of the initial sample size t0 is crucial because using a small value will not give detailed information about the model, however, large values will consume more effort on irrelevant solutions. Moreover, it also assumes that all details about the model are in hand. However, using the E(OCm) gives better measurement than P(CSm) because even if the selected subset is not the actual subset, the total costs of the selected policies are very close to that of the actual ones. Therefore, the E(OCm) is very close to zero. However, using the P(CSm) gives that the probability of correct selection is small. So we recommend using the expected opportunity cost as a measure of selection quality. In the future, we are interested to extend the work for solving supply chain management problems.

    We suggest for decision-makers and managers to use the expected opportunity cost as a measure of performance for selecting the best policies rather than the probability of correct selection, the reason for that they may need extensive simulation runs in order to increase the correct selection.

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.



    [1] M. Botur, A. Dvurečenskij, State-morphism algebras–-general approach, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 218 (2013), 90–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2012.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2012.08.013
    [2] I. Chajda, R. Halaš, H. Länger, Operations and structures derived from non-associative MV-algebras, Soft Comput., 23 (2019), 3935–3944. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3309-4 doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3309-4
    [3] I. Chajda, M. Kolařík, Independence of axiom system of basic algebras, Soft Comput., 13 (2009), 41–43. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-008-0291-2 doi: 10.1007/s00500-008-0291-2
    [4] I. Chajda, H. Länger, Sheffer operation in relational systems, Soft Comput., 26 (2022), 89–97. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06466-x doi: 10.1007/s00500-021-06466-x
    [5] I. Chajda, Sheffer operation in ortholattices, Acta Univ. Palack. Olomuc. Fac. Rerum Natur. Math., 44 (2005), 19–23.
    [6] C. C. Chang, Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 88 (1958), 467–490.
    [7] X. Y. Cheng, X. L. Xin, P. F. He, Generalized state maps and states on pseudo equality algebras, Open Math., 16 (2018), 133–148. http://doi.org/10.1515/math-2018-0014 doi: 10.1515/math-2018-0014
    [8] L. C. Ciungu, Internal states on equality algebras, Soft Comput., 19 (2015), 939–953. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1494-3 doi: 10.1007/s00500-014-1494-3
    [9] L. C. Ciungu, A. Dvurečenskij, M. Hyčko, State BL-algebras, Soft Comput., 15 (2010), 619–634. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-010-0571-5
    [10] L. C. Ciungu, States on pseudo-BCK algebras, Math. Rep., 10 (2008), 17–36.
    [11] L. C. Ciungu, Bosbach and Riečan states on residuated lattices, J. Appl. Funct. Anal., 3 (2008), 175–188.
    [12] S. M. Ghasemi Nejad, R. A. Borzooei, Internal states and homomorphisms on implication basic algebras, 7th Iranian Joint Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems (CFIS) IEEE, 2019.
    [13] S. M. Ghasemi Nejad, R. A. Borzooei, M. Bakhshi, States on implication basic algebras, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 17 (2020), 139–156.
    [14] G. Georgescu, Bosbach states on fuzzy structures, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 8 (2004), 217–230. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-003-0266-2 doi: 10.1007/s00500-003-0266-2
    [15] C. Jana, M. Pal, Generalized Intuitionistic Fuzzy Ideals of BCK/BCI-algebras Based on 3-valued Logic and Its Computational Study, Fuzzy Inform. Eng., 9 (2017), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fiae.2017.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.fiae.2017.05.002
    [16] C. Jana, T. Senapati, M. Pal, Different types of cubic ideals in BCI-algebras based on fuzzy points, Afr. Mat., 31 (2020), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13370-019-00728-6 doi: 10.1007/s13370-019-00728-6
    [17] C. Jana, M. Pal, On (α,β)-US Sets in BCK/BCI-Algebras, Mathematics, 7 (2019), 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/math7030252 doi: 10.3390/math7030252
    [18] C. Jana, T. Senapati, M. Pal, Handbook of Research on Emerging Applications of Fuzzy Algebraic Structures, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0190-0
    [19] W. McCune, R. Veroff, B. Fitelson, K. Harris, A. Feist, L. Wos, Short single axioms for Boolean algebra, J. Automat. Reason., 29 (2002), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020542009983 doi: 10.1023/A:1020542009983
    [20] D. Mundici, Averaging the truth-value in Ł ukasiewicz logic, Stud. Logica, 55 (1995), 113–127. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053035 doi: 10.1007/BF01053035
    [21] T. Oner, I. Senturk, The Sheffer stroke operation reducts of basic algebras, Open Math., 15 (2017), 926–935. http://doi.org/10.1515/math-2017-0075 doi: 10.1515/math-2017-0075
    [22] T. Oner, T. Kalkan, A. Borumand Saeid, Class of Sheffer stroke BCK-algebras, An. Şt. Univ. Ovidius Constanţa, 30 (2022), 247–269.
    [23] B. Riečan, On the probability on BL-algebras, Acta Math. Nitra, 4 (2000), 3–13.
    [24] I. Senturk, A view on state operators in Sheffer stroke basic algebras, Soft Comput., 25 (2021), 11471–11484. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06059-8 doi: 10.1007/s00500-021-06059-8
    [25] I. Senturk, T. Oner, An interpretation on Sheffer stroke reduction of some algebraic structures, AIP Conf. Proc., 2183 (2019), 130004.
    [26] H. M. Sheffer, A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 14 (1913), 481–488. http://doi.org/10.2307/1988701 doi: 10.2307/1988701
    [27] A. Tarski, Ein beitrag zur axiomatik der abelschen gruppen, Fund. Math., 30 (1938), 253–256.
    [28] E. Turunen, J. Mertanen, States on semi-divisible residuated lattices, Soft Comput., 12 (2008), 353–357. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-007-0182-y doi: 10.1007/s00500-007-0182-y
    [29] S. Zahiri, A. Borumand Saeid, The role of states in triangle algebras, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 17 (2020), 163–176.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Irina Volinsky, Mathematical Model of Hepatitis B Virus Treatment with Support of Immune System, 2022, 10, 2227-7390, 2821, 10.3390/math10152821
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2025 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(645) PDF downloads(47) Cited by(0)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog