Order picking problems under weight, fragility and category constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Warehouse order picking activities are among the ones that impact the most the bottom lines of warehouses. They are known to often account for more than half of the total warehousing costs. New practices and innovations generate new challenges for managers and open new research avenues. Many practical constraints arising in real-life have often been neglected in the scientific literature. We introduce, model and solve a rich order picking problem under weight, fragility and category constraints, motivated by our observation of a real-life application arising in the grocery retail industry. This difficult warehousing problem combines complex picking and routing decisions under the objective of minimising the distance travelled. We first provide a full description of the warehouse design which enables us to algebraically compute the distances between all pairs of products. We then propose two distinct mathematical models to formulate the problem. We develop five heuristic methods, including extensions of the classical largest gap, mid-point, S-shape and combined heuristics. The fifth one is an implementation of the powerful adaptive large neighbourhood search algorithm specifically designed for the problem at hand. We then implement a branch-and-cut algorithm and cutting planes to solve the two formulations. The performance of the proposed solution methods is assessed on a newly generated and realistic test bed containing up to 100 pickups and 7 aisles. We compare the bounds provided by the two formulations. Our in-depth analysis shows which formulation tends to perform better. Extensive computational experiments confirm the efficiency of the ALNS metaheuristic and derive some important insights for managing order picking in this kind of warehouses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".