Papers for
logistics operations teams
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.
Agentic AI framework improves spatial decisions in supply chains
Agentic AI Orchestration Framework for Spatial Intelligence: Supply Chain Deployment
Abstract: Industrial spatial decisions are assembled across systems that share neither a reference frame nor an owner, and analysts spend substantial effort reconciling those systems rather than reasoning about space. This paper presents ANASSA, a reference architecture integrating structured reasoning, multi-agent workflow orchestration, authoritative spatial grounding, and feedback-driven execution, and reports its instantiation in an operating supply-chain deployment. The architecture places typed data contracts at agent boundaries, validates spatial claims against a certified authoritative foundation, and enforces two blocking human-in-the-loop approvals inside a six-step cognitive loop. The deployment covers multi-hazard risk assessment on an ocean-and-inland freight lane, including cold-chain excursion detection over container telemetry. Across a three-month proof of concept (POC) with three implementation iterations, three deployment outcomes are reported: 25% improvement in data quality, 50% reduction in spatial workflow runtime, and 60% lower decision latency relative to the preceding manual workflow. Absolute deployment-scale quantities and baseline counts are confidential; reported percentages are observed relative changes. These are uncontrolled deployment observations, not controlled experiments. We therefore specify instrumentation and ablation protocols for mechanism-level evaluation.
Curriculum learning speeds up job shop scheduling by training on small instances first
Curriculum Learning with GNN-based Reinforcement Learning for Job Shop Scheduling
Abstract: The job shop scheduling problem is a challenging combinatorial optimization problem, and recent reinforcement learning approaches using graph neural networks have shown promise for learning scheduling policies directly from problem instances. However, training on large instances remains computationally expensive, and generalization across instance sizes remains challenging. This paper studies curriculum learning for graph neural network-based reinforcement learning in the job shop scheduling problem by comparing it with single-size training across three target sizes: 20 x 20, 25 x 25, and 30 x 30. In the curriculum setting, the policy is first trained on smaller instances and then progressively adapted to larger target sizes, allowing scheduling behavior learned in earlier stages to support learning on larger instances. Models are evaluated on unseen instances from 8 x 8 to 30 x 30 using the optimality gap, considering both generalization across all evaluation sizes and specialization on the target size. Results show that curriculum learning consistently reduces wall-clock training time, with larger benefits as the target size increases. The strongest advantage is observed at 30 x 30, where curriculum learning reduces the mean optimality gap across all evaluation sizes by approximately 8.1 percentage points, reduces the target-size mean optimality gap by approximately 8.6 percentage points, and saves approximately 50 hours of training time.
Vision language models lag in fixed camera infrastructure tasks
VANTAGE-Bench: Evaluating the Infrastructure AI Gap in Vision-Language Models
Abstract: As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) advance toward physical deployment, the focus has remained on action-oriented Embodied AI evaluated on subject-centric consumer video. This overlooks a pervasive class of Physical AI: Infrastructure AI, which relies on fixed cameras for open-loop insights like safety monitoring and operational logging. We introduce VANTAGE-Bench, a benchmark measuring this "Infrastructure AI Gap." It spans three operational domains (Logistics, Transportation, and Smart Spaces), unifies image and video evaluation across semantic, spatial, temporal, and spatio-temporal capabilities, and moves beyond multiple-choice to eight task formulations including dense captioning and spatio-temporal grounding. It adds a single-pass trajectory protocol for Single Object Tracking and, to our knowledge, the first such evaluation on fixed-camera infrastructure video, scored against specialist trackers. Annotation spans three regimes over 3,346 media assets: 3,342 video-task annotations, 4,281 image-grounding annotations, and 27,404 detection boxes. Evaluating 17 models zero-shot, we find the shortfall relative to consumer-centric benchmarks is concentrated, not general. Event verification, referring expressions, and temporal localization fall roughly 9 to 24 points at every model scale, while video question answering stays within 5.3 points of VideoMME and 2D spatial pointing shows no shortfall against BLINK. The temporal pillar is weakest in absolute terms: no system exceeds 55.7 mIoU on temporal localization or 37.3 SODA_c on dense video captioning. On tracking, frontier models come within roughly 5 points of specialist trackers over short horizons but separate as the horizon extends. Open-weight models lead 2D object localization outright, so neither scale nor proprietary access explains the pattern. Data, evaluation harness, and leaderboard: https://vantage-bench.org/