1996
DOI: 10.1016/0098-1354(96)00031-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Different formulations for solving trim loss problems in a paper-converting mill with ILP

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The genetic hybrid algorithm (cf. O È stermark 1999b) combines some key properties of genetic algorithms (GA) with classical (constrained) nonlinear programming methods (cf., e.g., Pettersson 1994;Harjunkoski et al 1996;Westerlund et al 1994;Joines and Houck 1994).…”
Section: A Hybrid Algorithm For Automatic Detection Of Parsimonious Nmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The genetic hybrid algorithm (cf. O È stermark 1999b) combines some key properties of genetic algorithms (GA) with classical (constrained) nonlinear programming methods (cf., e.g., Pettersson 1994;Harjunkoski et al 1996;Westerlund et al 1994;Joines and Houck 1994).…”
Section: A Hybrid Algorithm For Automatic Detection Of Parsimonious Nmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…With few exceptions, the robustness of the downloaded ®les has been improved by some error handling routines for illconditioned problems. The Quasi±Newton library consists of the BFGS-method by Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb, and Shanno [19] and crash proof modi®cations of the Steepest descent method with quadratic/cubic linesearch. Possible machine over¯ow is circumvented by safe division procedures: In the case of numerical problems we prefer to extract a poor solution rather than letting the program fail and produce core dump.…”
Section: A Hybrid Algorithm For Automatic Detection Of Parsimonious Nmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(5) A nonconvex trim loss problem (Harjunkoski et al, 1996) (6) A neural hard staircase estimation problem (Saxén and Saxén, 1994). …”
Section: Test Problemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recommendations made to modelers (i.e., nonautomatic reformulations) often include: using linear formulations if possible (Harjunkoski et al, 1996); using convex functional forms if possible ; dissaggregating terms (Tawarmalani et al, 2002;Tawarmalani and Sahinidis, 2002b); adding redundant constraints into the model formulation (Karuppiah and Grossmann, 2006;Ahmetović and Grossmann, 2011;Ruiz and Grossmann, 2011b). Any MINLP solution method introducing auxiliary variables is doing automatic reformulations, but it is currently unclear (for the general case) what are the best automatic reformulations.…”
Section: Reformulations and Other Preprocessing Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%