A solver-guided LLM that routes each inventory instance to one of four MIP formulations more than doubles exact-best expert selection and yields a 12.6 percentage-point improvement in allocation accuracy on JD.com instances, narrowing the gap to the ex-post oracle to 4.85 points.

Main Finding

A solver-guided LLM can effectively route individual multi-warehouse inventory-allocation instances to the best among several hand-crafted MIP formulations, substantially improving realized allocation quality versus a single fixed formulation or a preference-trained selector. In JD.com production data, the full pipeline (SFT + IPO + GRPO) raises Hit Ratio@1 from 21.45% to 50.42%, Hit Ratio@2 from 70.47% to 82.31%, achieves an allocation-accuracy gain of 12.57 percentage points over the incumbent baseline, and reduces the gap to the ex-post oracle to 4.85 pp.

Key Points

• Problem framing: instance-wise OR formulation selection — choose one MIP formulation per allocation instance (SKU + warehouses + replenishment) to maximize realized allocation accuracy under realized demand.
• Candidate expert library: four complementary MIP formulations encoding different allocation priorities:
  • LB (Lexicographic Band): maximize in-band replenishment then minimize residual deviation.
  • SBD (Scalarized Band-Deviation): weighted tradeoff between band satisfaction and deviation.
  • DM (Deviation Minimization): minimize aggregate absolute TID deviation.
  • RCB (Reliability-Calibrated Band): penalize band violations more at warehouses with reliable forecasts.
• Progressive solver-guided post-training pipeline:
• Balanced Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) to learn schema-consistent selection outputs.
• Identity Preference Optimization (IPO): margin-weighted chosen/rejected pairs constructed from solver-evaluated score gaps (≥5% relative threshold) to improve pairwise discrimination.
• Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO): uses precomputed per-instance metadata (expert scores, rankings, best-expert identity, reference score) to compute group-normalized rollout rewards and refine the policy on sampled responses.
• Reward design in GRPO combines normalized realized allocation quality, ranking-aware terms, exact-best supervision, reference-sticking regularization (LB used as reference), and structure/validity penalties.
• Empirical gains concentrate where a dominant expert regime exists; GRPO substantially improves selection and realized utility relative to SFT+IPO and fixed experts.

Data & Methods

• Decision model and evaluation:
  • Per-warehouse TID τi = (Ii + xi) / Di for Di > 0; system TID τall = (Σi Ii + R) / (Σi Di).
  • Allocation accuracy Accℓ,ℓ(x; Dreal) = fraction of allocated volume sent to warehouses whose realized TID lies within [ℓτall, ℓ̄τall].
  • Objective: maximize expected realized per-instance score sq(E) = Acc(xE_q; Dreal_q) by selecting E ∈ E.
• Training-data construction:
  • For each historical instance, solve all K candidate MIPs offline with an MIP solver to produce ex-post scores and rankings.
  • SFT records: ≈17,000 balanced examples (structured instruction → expert + justification).
  • IPO pairs: ≈4,000 margin-weighted preference pairs (filtered and balanced).
  • GRPO prompts: ≈2,300 instances with cached per-instance metadata Mq = {sq, ρq, E q, s q, Eref, sref q } for reward lookup.
• Models, solvers, evaluation:
  • Base LLM: Qwen3-14B used for all post-training stages.
  • MIP solver: SCIP for computing allocation plans and realized scores.
  • Evaluation set: 718 real-world multi-warehouse allocation instances from JD.com.
  • Metrics: Hit Ratio@1/@2 (oracle-expert identification), Allocation Accuracy Gain over incumbent baseline, Oracle Gap (difference to per-instance ex-post best).
• Key empirical results:
  • SFT+IPO+GRPO vs SFT+IPO: HR@1 +28.97 pp (21.45 → 50.42%), HR@2 +11.84 pp (70.47 → 82.31%).
  • Allocation-accuracy gain: SFT+IPO+GRPO = +12.57 pp over baseline; SFT+IPO = +9.89 pp; fixed best (LB) = +10.53 pp.
  • Oracle gap reduced from 7.53 pp (SFT+IPO) to 4.85 pp (with GRPO).

Implications for AI Economics

• Value of instance-wise routing: Automatically selecting among interpretable, solver-executable formulations yields measurable economic value in inventory allocation (higher realized coverage and better balance), showing substantial returns relative to a one-size-fits-all formulation.
• Complementarity of model and solver: The approach leverages an LLM for heterogeneous-instance understanding and an exact MIP solver for reliable execution, demonstrating a productive hybrid—LLM as high-level router + OR solvers as low-level optimizer—suitable for many operational problems with structured solvers.
• Post-training methods matter: GRPO (group-relative RL) provides significant incremental gains beyond supervised and pairwise-preference training, indicating that policy optimization with per-instance ex-post metadata can better align selectors to downstream economic outcomes.
• Cost/benefit and deployment considerations:
  • Offline cost: requires solving all candidate MIPs on historical instances to build supervision/metadata (compute and solver time). This is an upfront cost but amortizable and essential to get reward signals tied to realized demand.
  • Runtime cost: inference overhead is small (LLM selection + single MIP solve per instance) compared with solving all candidates online.
  • Robustness and generalization: selection depends on historical solver-evaluated realized-demand outcomes; distributional shifts in demand patterns or forecast quality could degrade performance—periodic re-evaluation and re-training (or online adaptation) will be needed.
• Policy and market-level impacts:
  • Improved allocation accuracy reduces overstock/stockout risks, improving retailer service levels and lowering holding costs—direct economic gains.
  • Interpretable expert library facilitates auditing, scenario analysis, and regulatory compliance compared with opaque end-to-end learned policies.
  • The method generalizes to other OR settings (vehicle routing, scheduling, network design) where multiple complementary formulations/algorithms exist and instance heterogeneity is economically relevant.
• Risks and limitations:
  • Dependence on realized-demand labels: historical realizations may contain noise or be influenced by external interventions.
  • Candidate library design: benefits hinge on having complementary, well-designed formulations; incomplete libraries limit potential gains.
  • Potential for overfitting to training regimes; careful validation across business scenarios and regular updates are required.

Possible next steps for practitioners: expand the expert library, instrument ongoing solver-evaluated feedback for continuous retraining, quantify cost savings from deployment, and test robustness under demand-shift scenarios.