Uncovering expert objectives in production planning via inverse optimization: An industrial case study
Authors: Shivi Dixit, Rishabh Gupta, Adam Kelloway, John Wassick, Qi Zhang
Organizations: Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA · The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI 48642, USA · Department of Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Abstract
Production planning in the manufacturing industry often relies on the use of optimization models, but defining an appropriate objective function can be a challenge. In practice, planners must balance competing goals, manage uncertainty, and account for qualitative business preferences that are difficult to quantify. As a result, many optimization models fail to match expert behavior, limiting trust and adoption. In this work, we propose a data-driven inverse optimization framework to infer the objective function implicitly captured in expert planners' decisions. We formulate the production planning problem as a mixed-integer linear program, where the unknown objective function is represented as a weighted sum of hypothesized cost terms. A suboptimality-loss-based inverse optimization method is then applied to learn the objective weights from historical production plans. The proposed approach is applied to a real industrial case provided by Dow, where the inferred weights reveal that avoiding inventory shortages and maintaining consistent cycle lengths dominate the planners' decision-making. Time- and product-dependent extensions further improve predictive accuracy and uncover evolving priorities. Expert interviews confirm the practical validity of these insights. Overall, this study shows that inverse optimization can transform tacit human expertise into interpretable models, enabling more accurate and trusted decision-support tools for complex industrial systems.
Network planning optimization is a fundamental problem across diverse domains, including transportation systems, communication networks, and power grids. It requires simultaneous optimization of multiple competing objectives under complex constraints. Existing network planning optimization frameworks rely on mixed integer programming (MIP) solvers, heuristics, and deep reinforcement learning (DRL) models to compute planning decisions. However, they lack effective adaptability to diverse and dynamic user intents, thus leading to the trade-off between execution time and optimality. In this paper, we propose OmniPlan, an adaptive framework that achieves both timeliness and near-optimality in network planning optimization. To achieve the adaptability lacking in existing solutions, OmniPlan employs a large language model (LLM)-based interpreter to convert heterogeneous natural-language intents into a unified and quantifiable user-preference vector. Then it employs a mixture-of-experts architecture that integrates MIP solvers, heuristics, and DRL models as specialized experts, where OmniPlan adapts to diverse intents by dynamically selecting timely and near-optimal experts. Finally, it incorporates a DRL-based expert configuration module that fine-tunes optimization objective weights to align planning decisions with user-specific preferences. We evaluate OmniPlan with a representative real-world workload, i.e., distributed machine learning (ML), where we leverage OmniPlan to offload a wide spectrum of ML inference tasks, e.g., decision trees, SVM, naive Bayes, XGBoost, and random forests, onto a network of hardware devices. Our experiments on a real-world testbed indicate that OmniPlan achieves near-optimal and low-execution-time offloading for real-world ML inference tasks, reducing latency by up to 97.8% and network device resource consumption by up to 11.5%.
The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value
A data-driven inverse optimization problem (DDIOP) is the problem of estimating the objective-function parameters (weights) that explain observed optimal-solution data, and it arises in many applications, including integer linear programming (ILP). It is known that, by applying gradient-based optimization methods to the suboptimality loss, the inverse optimization of ILPs can be solved exactly within finitely many oracle iterations, and that the required number of iterations is bounded as T=O(1/γ(ℓsub)2) in terms of a problem-dependent geometric constant γ(ℓsub). However, no means of bounding γ(ℓsub) from below as a function of the problem size has been available, and hence the number of iterations could not be given as an explicit function of the problem size. We therefore give, when the forward problem is an integer linear program (ILP), the number of iterations sufficient for projected subgradient descent applied to the suboptimality loss to achieve exact consistency with the observed data, as a fully explicit function of the number of samples, the dimension of the features, the ranges of the features, and the structure of the constraint coefficient matrix, up to polynomial factors in the basic constants (the diameter of the weight set, the step-size parameter, and the Lipschitz constant of the suboptimality loss).