Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Neural Coordination and Capacity Control for Inventory Management

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.02817 v1 pith:KM5RHLDL submitted 2024-09-24 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SYstat.ML

Neural Coordination and Capacity Control for Inventory Management

classification eess.SY cs.LGcs.SYstat.ML
keywords capacitycontrolinventoryneuralcapacitatedcoordinatorlearningmanagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper addresses the capacitated periodic review inventory control problem, focusing on a retailer managing multiple products with limited shared resources, such as storage or inbound labor at a facility. Specifically, this paper is motivated by the questions of (1) what does it mean to backtest a capacity control mechanism, (2) can we devise and backtest a capacity control mechanism that is compatible with recent advances in deep reinforcement learning for inventory management? First, because we only have a single historic sample path of Amazon's capacity limits, we propose a method that samples from a distribution of possible constraint paths covering a space of real-world scenarios. This novel approach allows for more robust and realistic testing of inventory management strategies. Second, we extend the exo-IDP (Exogenous Decision Process) formulation of Madeka et al. 2022 to capacitated periodic review inventory control problems and show that certain capacitated control problems are no harder than supervised learning. Third, we introduce a `neural coordinator', designed to produce forecasts of capacity prices, guiding the system to adhere to target constraints in place of a traditional model predictive controller. Finally, we apply a modified DirectBackprop algorithm for learning a deep RL buying policy and a training the neural coordinator. Our methodology is evaluated through large-scale backtests, demonstrating RL buying policies with a neural coordinator outperforms classic baselines both in terms of cumulative discounted reward and capacity adherence (we see improvements of up to 50% in some cases).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Policy Optimization in Hybrid Discrete-Continuous Action Spaces via Mixed Gradients

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    HPO enables unbiased policy optimization in hybrid action spaces by mixing differentiable simulation gradients with score-function estimates, outperforming PPO as continuous dimensions increase.

  2. Hard Constraints, Smooth Gradients: Learning Feasible Inventory Policies via Differentiable Projection

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    A differentiable QP-projection plus dual-aware rounding layer lets deep RL policies enforce interdependent hard constraints, achieving near-optimal cost on small instances and 2.5–3.2% savings on an ASML case study.

  3. Ready from Day 1: Population-Aware Coordination for Large-Scale Constrained Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Population-conditioned learned primal and dual maps support reliable coordination of large multi-agent systems under composition shifts without per-cycle retraining, cutting forecast error 16-19% and violations 20-51%...

  4. Ready from Day 1: Population-Aware Coordination for Large-Scale Constrained Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Learned primal and dual maps conditioned on population summaries enable reliable coordination across composition shifts in large multi-agent systems, cutting forecast error 16-19% and violations 20-51% in a supply-cha...