Research on Production Decision-Making Model Based on Monte Carlo Simulation Algorithm

Authors

  • Rui Fu
  • Pengjian Yao
  • Rui Wang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/fx3fhx44

Keywords:

Production decisions, SPRT model, Cost-effectiveness, Monte Carlo simulation.

Abstract

Reasonably determining the minimum sample size of electronic device sampling and testing has an important cost-effective value for enterprises, which is conducive to improving their economic efficiency and market competitiveness. In this paper, hypothesis testing and normal distribution approximation are used to determine the minimum sample size, then the sequential probability ratio (SPRT) model test is used to derive the sampling and testing scheme, and the stability of the decision is analyzed through the operating characteristic (OC) curve and the average sample size (ASN) curve, so as to further establish the cost-benefit analysis model to assess the impact of the testing cost, defective rate, market selling price and other factors on the profit, and finally the Monte Carlo simulation algorithm is used to predict the profit under different scenarios and strategies. Finally, Monte Carlo simulation algorithms are used to predict the cost-effectiveness under different situations and strategies, and to derive the optimal strategic plan, decision-making basis and corresponding index results for each production situation.This optimal production decision allows the enterprise to effectively manage inspection costs while maintaining product quality. It also contributes to a reduction in the rate of defective products, enhances market pricing strategies, and ultimately facilitates the efficient allocation of resources.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Samat, N., K.H. Goh, and K.F. See. Review of the application of cost-benefit analysis to the development of production systems in aquaculture[J]. Aquaculture, 2024, 587.

[2] Zhang, J.D. and J.L. Zhao. Prediction-Driven Sequential Optimization for Refined Oil Production-Sales-Stock Decision-Making[J]. Energies, 2022, 15(12).

[3] Rotunno, G., et al. Discrete event simulation as a decision tool: a cost benefit analysis case study[J]. Journal of Simulation, 2024, 18(3): 378-394.

[4] de Amorim, F.R., et al. Forecasting Cost Risks of Corn and Soybean Crops through Monte Carlo Simulation[J]. Applied Sciences-Basel, 2024, 14(17).

[5] Li, W., et al. A self-learning Monte Carlo tree search algorithm for robot path planning[J]. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 2023, 17.

[6] Imaizumi, M., H. Ota, and T. Hamaguchi. Hypothesis Test and Confidence Analysis With Wasserstein Distance on General Dimension[J]. Neural Computation, 2022, 34(6): 1448-1487.

[7] Chou, C.T. Using transcription-based detectors to emulate the behavior of sequential probability ratio-based concentration detectors br[J]. Physical Review E, 2022, 106(5).

[8] Wang, J. K. Corrections to the Two-Tailed Probabilities of the Binomial Distribution and Hypothesis Testing Statistics[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022,50(06): 1361- 1372.

[9] Esteves, L.G., et al. Logical coherence in Bayesian simultaneous three-way hypothesis tests[J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2023, 152(297-309).

[10] Tang, W.P. and F.M. Tang. The Poisson Binomial Distribution- Old & New[J]. Energy and Buildings, 2023, 282(108-119).

[11] Jafarikia, S. and S.A.H. Feghhi. Built in importance estimation in forward Monte Carlo calculations[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2022, 177.

[12] Liu, T.T., W.Z. Tian, and W. Ning. Sequential probability ratio test for zero inflation in counting data[J]. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 2023, 52(4): 1344-1360.

[13] Novikov, N.V. Monte Carlo Computer Simulation Method for Solving the Problem of Particle Passage Through Matter[J]. Journal of Surface Investigation, 2023, 17(3): 712-723.

Downloads

Published

10-01-2025

How to Cite

Fu, R., Yao, P., & Wang, R. (2025). Research on Production Decision-Making Model Based on Monte Carlo Simulation Algorithm. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 45, 733-741. https://doi.org/10.54097/fx3fhx44