MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403747487 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12619

Picking Operations in Warehouses with Dynamically Arriving Orders: How Good is Reoptimization?

2024· preprint· en· W4403747487 on OpenAlex
Catherine Lorenz, Alena Otto, Michel Gendreau

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBayerische ForschungsallianzMinistère des relations internationales et de la FrancophonieCompute Canada
KeywordsWarehouseComputer scienceOperations managementBusinessOperations researchDatabaseEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-commerce operations are essentially online, with customer orders arriving dynamically. However, very little is known about the performance of online policies for warehousing with respect to optimality, particularly for order picking and batching operations, which constitute a substantial portion of the total operating costs in warehouses. We aim to close this gap for one of the most prominent dynamic algorithms, namely reoptimization (Reopt), which reoptimizes the current solution each time when a new order arrives. We examine Reopt in the Online Order Batching, Sequencing, and Routing Problem (OOBSRP), in both cases when the picker uses either a manual pushcart or a robotic cart. Moreover, we examine the noninterventionist Reopt in the case of a manual pushcart, wherein picking instructions are provided exclusively at the depot. We establish analytical performance bounds employing worst-case and probabilistic analysis. We demonstrate that, under generic stochastic assumptions, Reopt is almost surely asymptotically optimal and, notably, we validate its near-optimal performance in computational experiments across a broad range of warehouse settings. These results underscore Reopt's relevance as a method for online warehousing applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.137 · 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