Meta-Heuristic Algorithms based on Integer Programming for Shelf Space Allocation Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retail shelf space management, which is one of the most complex aspects of retailing, can be defined as determining when, where and in what quantities products will be displayed and dynamically updating the display considering changing market conditions. Although it is an important problem, research papers that study rectangular arrangement of products to optimize profit are limited. In this paper, we determine rectangular facing units of products to maximize profit for shelf space allocation and the display problem. To solve our two-dimensional shelf space allocation problem, we develop two matheuristic algorithms by using integer programming and genetic algorithm (TP-GA) and integer programming and firefly algorithm (TP-ABA) meta-heuristics together. The performances of the mathheuristics were compared with a real-world dataset from a bookstore. TP-GA and TP-ABA methods were able to generate near-optimal solutions with an average of 4.47% and 4.57% GAPs, respectively. We can also solve instances up to 900 products. These matheuristic algorithms, which are successful in the two-dimensional shelf assignment problem, can also be used to solve similar problems such as allocation of books in a bookstore, allocation of product families in a grocery store, or display of advertisements on websites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".