Papers for

inventory managers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Optimal strategies for learning with limited reward probes in bandit problems

Bandits with Probing: Optimal Regret and the Limits of Winner Feedback

Abstract: A learner probes at most $k$ of $n$ arms each round, receives the maximum of their rewards in $[0,1]$, and competes with the best fixed arm. When does the probing advantage pay for learning? We determine two minimax laws. Under independent stochastic rewards with winner feedback (the maximum and a winning label), or on arbitrary fixed sequences given a single signed contrast between block maxima, the minimax regret has order $Φ_{n,k}(T)=\min\{\frac{n-k}{n}T,\frac{n-k}{k}\}$, $2\le k<n$. Under winner feedback, both arbitrary joint i.i.d. rewards and fixed sequences have minimax regret of order $R_{n,k}(T)=\frac{n-k}{n}\min\{T,\frac{n+T}{k},\sqrt{\frac{nT}{k}}\}$. Both laws have universal constants and anytime upper bounds. The first reduces regret to a pure coverage cost: same-round contrasts absorb the stability cost, and independence permits exact resampling whose gains fund sample advancement. The second adds a learning cost that becomes comparable to coverage at horizon $n$; beyond $nk$, numerical maxima improve over labels alone. The lower bound allows every adaptive action size.

Mon 14 SeptMachine LearningData Structures and Algorithms
The gist
This paper looks at a situation where a learner can check just a few choices each time and only sees the best reward from those checks. The authors find exact limits on how well anyone can do in these problems, depending on how many choices are checked and what kind of feedback they get. They show that sometimes just knowing the winner is enough to reduce mistakes, but in other cases, more detailed information helps. Their results clarify when exploring a few options each round actually helps learning and when it doesn’t.
Open 2609.15248v1

Combining machine learning with special methods improves demand forecasts

Are Gradient Boosting Models Suitable for Intermittent Demand Forecasting?

Abstract: Demand forecasting is critical in modern industry, offering opportunities to reduce costs and gain competitive advantage through improved inventory management. However, forecasting becomes particularly challenging for products with intermittent demand, where demand occurs infrequently and time series contain many zero observations. Such dynamics are common across diverse sectors, such as industrial organizations, consumer goods, aviation, automotive, and electronics. Motivated by these challenges, this paper explores the potential of gradient boosting models to improve forecasting performance. We evaluate statistical, specialized, machine learning, and ensemble approaches across multiple datasets. The results show that specialized methods achieve the strongest performance among individual models, while gradient boosting on its own tends to underperform. However, combining a machine learning model with a specialized approach improves forecasting accuracy by up to 10%, demonstrating that even simple ensembles can outperform single models. Overall, the findings highlight the value of combining machine learning with domain-specific forecasting techniques for intermittent demand.

Sun 13 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Predicting demand is hard for products that are rarely sold, leading to many days with zero sales. The authors studied if gradient boosting, a machine learning method, can help forecast these tricky cases. They found that specialized forecasting methods work best alone, but adding gradient boosting to them can improve accuracy by up to 10%. This means mixing smart machine learning with traditional methods can make better predictions for rare product sales.
Open 2609.14718v1