We investigate machine learning approaches for optimizing real-time staffing decisions in semi-automated warehouse sortation systems. Operational decision-making can be supported at different levels of abstraction, with different trade-offs. We evaluate two approaches, each in a matching simulation environment. First, we train custom Transformer-based policies using offline reinforcement learning on detailed historical state representations, achieving a 2.4% throughput improvement over historical baselines in learned simulators. In high-volume warehouse operations, improvements of this size translate to significant savings. Second, we explore LLMs operating on abstracted, human-readable state descriptions. These are a natural fit for decisions that warehouse managers make using high-level operational summaries. We systematically compare prompting techniques, automatic prompt optimization, and fine-tuning strategies. While prompting alone proves insufficient, supervised fine-tuning combined with Direct Preference Optimization on simulator-generated preferences achieves performance that matches or slightly exceeds historical baselines in a hand-crafted simulator. Our findings demonstrate that both approaches offer viable paths toward AI-assisted operational decision-making. Offline RL excels with task-specific architectures. LLMs support human-readable inputs and can be combined with an iterative feedback loop that can incorporate manager preferences.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Predicted versus ground-truth output rates for the hand-crafted simulator. The data points cluster along the identity line (in red), which indicates that the simulator has been well-calibrated with no systematic over- or underprediction. R2=0.976 confirms that the simulator captures almost all of the variance in the ground-truth output.
Metric
Hand-crafted Simulator
Learned Simulator
Stage 1 Throughput
12.0%
20.0%
Stage 2 Throughput
12.1%
18.5%
Stage 3 (Total) Throughput
9.5%
15.8%
Buffer State 1
18.0%
7.2%
Buffer State 2
62.7%
25.6%
Buffer State 3
16.5%
6.7%
Table 1: The weighted average prediction errors of the learned simulator and the hand-crafted simulator. The hand-crafted simulator predicts the total throughput more accurately, whereas the learned simulator is superior at modeling the buffer states.
Figure 2: The TGNN architecture consists of repeated masked residual blocks. Each residual block integrates information along the stages, then between the lines, and finally across the time dimension.
Method
Throughput Improvement
95% CI
Offline Actor-Critic
+2.4%
[+2.3%, +2.6%]
Fine-Tuned Behavior Cloning
+2.1%
[+2.0%, +2.3%]
Behavior Cloning
+1.6%
[+1.4%, +1.8%]
Human Decisions (replayed)
0%
–
Table 2: Offline RL results in two internal learned simulators. Throughput improvement (percentage) is measured relative to replayed human decisions. Results are averaged over two different simulators to prevent overfitting to simulator-specific dynamics.
Figure 3: The learning curve for O ptimization by PRO mpting (OPRO). We see that the performance improves steadily before convergence.
Method
Throughput Improvement
95% CI
Automatic Prompt Optimization
OPRO + Self-Refine
-2.0%
[-2.3%, -1.8%]
Evolutionary Reflexion
-2.0%
[-2.3%, -1.7%]
Meta Agent Search
-2.7%
[-3.0%, -2.4%]
Hand-Crafted Prompting
Self-Refine
-2.1%
[-2.4%, -1.8%]
Table 3: Prompting and prompt optimization results in the hand-crafted simulator. Throughput improvement is measured relative to replayed human decisions.
Method
Throughput Improvement
95% CI
SFT + DPO (2 iterations)
+0.6%
[+0.5%, +0.7%]
SFT + DPO (1 iteration)
+0.3%
[+0.1%, +0.4%]
DPO only (2 iterations)
+0.0%
[-0.2%, +0.2%]
DPO only (1 iteration)
-0.4%
[-0.7%, -0.2%]
SFT only
-0.5%
[-0.6%, -0.4%]
Self-Refine (Qwen 32B)
-2.1%
[-2.4%, -1.8%]
Table 4: LLM results in hand-crafted simulator using Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct as the underlying model. Throughput improvement is measured relative to replayed human decisions.
School of Management, Fudan University · H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology · Department of Systems Engineering, City University of Hong Kong