MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lexicographic Multi-objective Order Picking Optimization for Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems

2024· article· en· W4406612526 on OpenAlexaff
Hanying Wang, Ziyan Zhao, Jiaqi Liang, Xingyang Li, Shixin Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexicographical orderComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Mobile robotHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceRobotMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of advancements in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and mechatronics, robots are increasingly integrated into e-commerce warehouses to enable smart order picking solutions and foster intelligent automation. A robot-assisted order picking process revolutionizes the traditional labor-intensive person-to-goods order picking technology, leading to a goods-to-person (G2P) smart warehouse. Within it, robots transport pods to predefined picking stations, where human pickers retrieve the requested goods from these pods to fulfill customer orders. The allocation of pods to robots and the scheduling of picking operations are key optimization issues in G2P order picking systems. Although they play a key role in improving operational efficiency, existing research has paid limited attention to their joint optimization. This study considers a lexicographic multi-objective optimization problem to shorten the order picking cycles under the premise of optimizing the picking efficiency evaluated by makespan. We build a mixed integer program for the newly proposed problem and develop a matheuristic algorithm by integrating a commodity-order model into a metaheuristic algorithm to solve it. Experimental results show that the proposed method can significantly shorten the total order picking cycles while keeping the minimum makespan. It outperforms a recent state-of-the-art algorithm. This work emphasizes the importance of joint optimization within G2P smart warehouses and reveals the high potential of the proposed method to be used in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207