MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543825592 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1251625

Order picking problems under weight, fragility and category constraints

2016· article· en· W2543825592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceHeuristicMathematical optimizationPoint (geometry)Order pickingMetaheuristicOrder (exchange)Operations researchWarehouseAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it