A two-stage stochastic model for picker allocation problem in warehouses considering the rest allowance and picker’s weight
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Order picking (OP) is a critical yet time-consuming and labor-intensive warehouse operation within the supply chain. In picker-to-part systems with high demand, pickers are exposed to fatigue due to the excessive repetition of picking activities, which results in high human energy expenditure. The literature indicates that energy expenditure depends on the picking activity and the worker’s attributes, such as pickers’ weight, gender, and age. Studies have shown that as the weights of individuals increase, the energy consumed for the same task increases. This study proposes a two-stage stochastic programming model that minimizes assignment and overtime costs while avoiding excessive fatigue levels for pickers by incorporating rest allowance into the picking tour time. In the first stage, the number of pickers required is decided. In the second stage, orders are assigned to pickers considering uncertain energy expenditure. The two-stage stochastic programming model is solved by the sample average approximation algorithm. Results show that both OP cost and the number of pickers required to fulfill an order increase when the picker’s weight exceeds 80kg. In allocating orders, pickers weighing less than 80kg should be assigned to orders with more items, such as those containing 4- or 5-items. Conversely, pickers weighing more than 80kg should be assigned to orders with fewer items, like those containing 2- or 3-items, to avoid fatigue side effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it