arxiv: 2605.11355 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CE

Recognition: no theorem link

gym-invmgmt: An Open Benchmarking Framework for Inventory Management Methods

Qinmin Vivian Hu, Reza Barati

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CE

keywords performancetopologyaccessdemandpolicyunderwhilebenchmark

0 comments

The pith

gym-invmgmt is a new benchmarking framework that evaluates inventory policies across optimization and learning methods, finding stochastic programming strongest among non-oracle approaches and PPO-Transformer best among learned ones in tested scenarios.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Inventory management involves deciding how much stock to order in supply chains to balance costs and avoid shortages. Different methods exist, from mathematical optimization to rules of thumb to AI agents that learn from experience. Comparing them is hard because each study uses different setups. This work creates gym-invmgmt as a common testbed built on Gymnasium, the standard for reinforcement learning environments. It includes a core set of 22 scenarios that vary the supply chain structure, demand patterns, and available information. Additional scenarios support multi-agent learning. The evaluations show that when forecasts are available, stochastic programming that plans for multiple possible futures performs best but is computationally expensive. Among AI methods, a transformer-based version of the PPO algorithm gives strong results with quick decisions. Graph-based neural networks work well in some chain structures but not others. Simple imitation of good policies works only when demand stays the same. The benchmark reveals that the best method depends on the specific conditions like whether demand changes or what information is known.

Core claim

Within these released scenarios, informed stochastic programming provides the strongest non-oracle reference, reflecting the value of scenario hedging under forecast access, but at substantially higher online computational cost. Among learned controllers, the Proximal Policy Optimization Transformer variant (PPO-Transformer) achieves the strongest learned-policy quality at fast inference, while Residual Reinforcement Learning (Residual RL) provides competitive hybrid performance.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the defined CoreEnv transition dynamics, reward function, action bounds, and KPI definitions create a neutral and representative testbed that does not inadvertently favor certain policy classes over others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11355 by Qinmin Vivian Hu, Reza Barati.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Inventory-method and benchmark-infrastructure timeline, from EOQ (Harris, 1913) to Gym-style OR benchmarks (Brockman et al., 2016). 1Benchmark framework, agents, and evaluation scripts: https://github.com/r2barati/gym-invmgmt-paper. A standalone Gymnasium environment library covering Newsvendor, Multi-Echelon, and Network inventory problems is available separately at https://github.com/r2barati/ gym-invmgm… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Schematic architecture of the gym-invmgmt framework. Topology, demand, and goodwill modules feed a centralized CoreEnv Gymnasium (Towers et al., 2023) MDP (Puterman, 1994); agents observe inventory/pipeline state and reorder on active links. Right: default divergent topology. Information access is reported separately from policy architecture. Blind agents act from realized demand history, pipeline orders, … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (a) Default network topology used in the benchmark. Raw material suppliers feed three capacity-constrained factories, which ship through two distributors to a single retailer facing stochastic demand 𝐷𝑡 . (b) Endogenous customer goodwill dynamics. The asymmetry between rapid sentiment decay and slow recovery rewards policies that protect service levels before stockouts compound. Including 𝐺 as a structural… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: a visualizes the speed–quality frontier, while Fig. 4b supports method selection by decomposing performance along each scenario axis. The full appendix version provides scenario-level heatmaps, training curves, transfer diagnostics, and detailed LLM diagnostics. (a) Speed–quality Pareto frontier. (b) Model recommendation matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Inventory-policy comparisons are often difficult to interpret because performance depends on the evaluation contract as much as on the policy itself. Differences in topology, demand regime, information access, feasibility constraints, shortage treatment, and Key Performance Indicator (KPI) definitions can change method rankings. We present gym-invmgmt, a Gymnasium-compatible extension of the OR-Gym inventory-management lineage for auditable cross-paradigm evaluation. The benchmark evaluates optimization, heuristic, and learned controllers under a shared CoreEnv transition, reward, action-bound, and KPI contract, while varying stress conditions through a 22-scenario core grid plus four supplemental MARL-mode rows. Within these released scenarios, informed stochastic programming provides the strongest non-oracle reference, reflecting the value of scenario hedging under forecast access, but at substantially higher online computational cost. Among learned controllers, the Proximal Policy Optimization Transformer variant (PPO-Transformer) achieves the strongest learned-policy quality at fast inference, while Residual Reinforcement Learning (Residual RL) provides competitive hybrid performance. The graph neural network variant (PPO-GNN) is highly competitive on the default divergent topology but less robust on the serial topology. Imitation learning performs well in stationary regimes but degrades under demand shift, and the bounded Large Language Model (LLM) policy-parameter baseline is best interpreted as a diagnostic controller rather than an autonomous inventory optimizer. Overall, the benchmark identifies scenario-conditioned leaders while showing that performance depends jointly on information access, demand shift, topology, and policy representation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A practical Gymnasium benchmark for inventory policies with a fixed 22-scenario grid, but the reported rankings rest on an untested claim that the CoreEnv contract is neutral across method classes.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is releasing gym-invmgmt, a Gymnasium-compatible extension of the OR-Gym line that packages inventory management into a shared CoreEnv with fixed transition dynamics, reward, action bounds, and KPI definitions. It then evaluates optimization, heuristic, and learned controllers across a 22-scenario core grid plus supplemental MARL rows, reporting that informed stochastic programming leads the non-oracle methods while PPO-Transformer leads the learned policies, with Residual RL competitive and PPO-GNN strong only on certain topologies. Imitation learning and the bounded LLM baseline are positioned as diagnostics rather than top performers. Releasing the scenarios and code under a single contract is the useful part; it directly tackles the problem that rankings often flip when topology, demand regime, or shortage treatment changes. The cross-paradigm setup that includes PPO-Transformer, GNN variants, and stochastic programming baselines is new relative to prior OR-Gym work and makes the comparisons more auditable than scattered individual papers. The supplemental MARL rows are a minor but welcome addition for multi-agent cases. The soft spot is that nothing in the abstract or described experiments shows the chosen dynamics, reward ratios, or KPI definitions are neutral rather than implicitly favoring scenario-hedging optimizers or sequence models. Varying topology and demand shift is good, but without explicit checks that the contract does not systematically advantage one policy class, the ordering remains tied to this specific setup. The claims are scoped to the released scenarios, which keeps them honest, yet the headline takeaway about strongest methods still needs that neutrality argument to travel. This is aimed at researchers who build or compare controllers for inventory and supply-chain problems. A reader who wants a ready testbed to plug in a new policy and run it against classical and other learned baselines will get immediate value from the released environment. The work is coherent on its own terms and engages the relevant literature without obvious internal contradictions, so it deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review and ask for explicit tests or arguments on why the CoreEnv choices do not bias the reported rankings.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces gym-invmgmt, a Gymnasium-compatible extension of the OR-Gym inventory-management environment, to enable auditable cross-paradigm comparisons. It defines a shared CoreEnv with fixed transition dynamics, reward function, action bounds, and KPI definitions, then evaluates optimization (informed stochastic programming), heuristics, and learned controllers (PPO-Transformer, PPO-GNN, Residual RL, imitation learning, and a bounded LLM baseline) across a 22-scenario grid that varies topology and demand regime, plus supplemental MARL rows. The central empirical claims are that informed stochastic programming is the strongest non-oracle reference (at high online cost), PPO-Transformer is the strongest learned policy at fast inference, Residual RL is competitive, and performance jointly depends on information access, topology, and demand shift.

Significance. If the CoreEnv contract proves neutral, the work supplies a reproducible, open benchmarking resource that directly addresses the field's problem of incomparable evaluations caused by differing topologies, shortage treatments, and KPI definitions. The release of scenarios and code, together with the explicit separation of oracle vs. non-oracle and learned vs. optimization baselines, is a concrete strength that could accelerate progress in inventory control research.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The ranking claims (informed stochastic programming strongest non-oracle; PPO-Transformer strongest learned policy) are load-bearing for the paper's contribution yet rest on the untested assumption that the CoreEnv transition dynamics, reward (holding/shortage cost ratios), action bounds, and KPI definitions create a neutral testbed. No sensitivity analysis, alternative reward formulations, or ablation under modified dynamics (e.g., different lead-time models or variance penalties) is presented to rule out systematic bias toward scenario-hedging optimizers or sequence-model policies.

minor comments (3)

[§3.2] §3.2 (CoreEnv specification): A compact table listing the exact parameter values (lead times, cost coefficients, demand distributions) for each of the 22 scenarios would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess the stress conditions at a glance.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 and associated text: The computational-cost comparison for stochastic programming vs. learned policies should report both mean and worst-case online solve times, together with the hardware used, to substantiate the claim of 'substantially higher' cost.
[§5] §5 (limitations): The discussion of generalizability could be strengthened by explicitly stating which classes of inventory problems (e.g., multi-echelon with capacity constraints or non-stationary lead times) fall outside the current CoreEnv scope.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for acknowledging the benchmark's potential to address incomparable evaluations in inventory control research. We respond to the major comment below and outline targeted revisions that strengthen the manuscript without altering its core contribution as an open, auditable framework.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The ranking claims (informed stochastic programming strongest non-oracle; PPO-Transformer strongest learned policy) are load-bearing for the paper's contribution yet rest on the untested assumption that the CoreEnv transition dynamics, reward (holding/shortage cost ratios), action bounds, and KPI definitions create a neutral testbed. No sensitivity analysis, alternative reward formulations, or ablation under modified dynamics (e.g., different lead-time models or variance penalties) is presented to rule out systematic bias toward scenario-hedging optimizers or sequence-model policies.

Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit sensitivity analysis leaves the neutrality assumption untested and that this merits attention given the load-bearing nature of the rankings. The manuscript frames the CoreEnv as a fixed, literature-derived contract (extending OR-Gym with standard holding/shortage ratios, action bounds, and KPIs) rather than claiming universal neutrality; results are explicitly conditioned on the released 22-scenario grid. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract, §4, and add a new limitations subsection that (i) justifies parameter choices with references to established inventory literature, (ii) discusses how the varied topologies and demand regimes already provide partial robustness probing, and (iii) acknowledges that alternative contracts could shift rankings. We will also include a limited sensitivity check on the holding/shortage cost ratio in one representative scenario. Full ablations across arbitrary lead-time models or variance penalties exceed the scope of this benchmark-establishment paper and are positioned as future uses of the open framework. This revision clarifies the conditional nature of the claims without overstating generality. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Exhaustive sensitivity analyses and ablations under all suggested alternative dynamics and reward formulations cannot be performed within the current revision due to computational cost and scope constraints.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The contribution is a software benchmarking framework rather than a mathematical model, so there are no free parameters fitted to data, no additional axioms beyond standard environment interfaces, and no invented entities postulated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1266 out tokens · 121653 ms · 2026-05-13T02:52:06.992582+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Optimalinventorypolicy.Econometrica,19(3):250–272,1951

KennethJ.Arrow,TheodoreHarris,andJacobMarschak. Optimalinventorypolicy.Econometrica,19(3):250–272,1951. Bharathan Balaji, Jordan Bell-Masterson, Enes Bilgin, Andreas Damianou, Pablo Moreno Garcia, Arpit Jain, et al. ORL: Reinforcement learning benchmarks for online stochastic optimization problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10641,

work page arXiv 1951
[2]

OpenAI Gym

Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. OpenAI Gym.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[3]

Jen-Ming Chen and Tsung-Hui Chen

doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2024.106778. Jen-Ming Chen and Tsung-Hui Chen. The multi-item replenishment problem in a two-echelon supply chain: the effect of centralization versus decentralization.Computers & Operations Research, 32:3191–3207,

work page doi:10.1016/j.cor.2024.106778 2024
[4]

2004.05.007

doi: 10.1016/j.cor. 2004.05.007. Andrew J. Clark and Herbert Scarf. Optimal policies for a multi-echelon inventory problem.Management Science, 6(4): 475–490,

work page doi:10.1016/j.cor 2004
[5]

Alegre, Ann Nowé, Ana L

Florian Felten, Lucas N. Alegre, Ann Nowé, Ana L. C. Bazzan, El Ghazali Talbi, Grégoire Danoy, and Bruno C. da Silva. A toolkit for reliable benchmarking and research in multi-objective reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural In- formationProcessingSystems,volume36,2023. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2023/hash/4aa8891583f07ae20...

work page 2023
[6]

Yanran Gao and Shuning Chen

doi: 10.1287/educ.1053.0020. Yanran Gao and Shuning Chen. Deep reinforcement learning for multi-echelon supply chain management under demand uncertainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.11485,

work page doi:10.1287/educ.1053.0020 2003
[7]

Graves and Sean P

14 Preprint May 13, 2026 Stephen C. Graves and Sean P. Willems. Optimizing strategic safety stock placement in supply chains.Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 2(1):68–83,

work page 2026
[8]

Hubbs, Hector D

Christian D. Hubbs, Hector D. Perez, Owais Sarwar, Nikolaos V. Sahinidis, Ignacio E. Grossmann, and John M. Wassick. OR-Gym: A reinforcement learning library for operations research problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06319,

work page arXiv 2008
[9]

Dhruv Madeka, Kari Torkkola, Carson Eisenach, Anna Luo, Dean P

arXiv:2308.01649. Dhruv Madeka, Kari Torkkola, Carson Eisenach, Anna Luo, Dean P. Foster, and Sham M. Kakade. Deep inventory management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03137v3,

work page arXiv
[10]

Stuart Mitchell, Michael O’Sullivan, and Iain Dunning

doi: 10.1007/s00521-021-06129-w. Stuart Mitchell, Michael O’Sullivan, and Iain Dunning. PuLP: A linear programming toolkit for Python,

work page doi:10.1007/s00521-021-06129-w
[11]

Afshin Oroojlooyjadid, MohammadReza Nazari, Lawrence V

doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0889. Afshin Oroojlooyjadid, MohammadReza Nazari, Lawrence V. Snyder, and Martin Takáč. A deep Q-network for the beer game: Deep reinforcement learning for inventory optimization.Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 24 (1):285–304,

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0889
[12]

InvAgent: Alargelanguagemodelbasedmulti-agentinventorymanagementsystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11384v1,

YinzhuQuanandZefangLiu. InvAgent: Alargelanguagemodelbasedmulti-agentinventorymanagementsystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11384v1,

work page arXiv
[13]

Qwen2.5 Technical Report

Qwen Team. Qwen2.5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[14]

doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15115. 15 Preprint May 13, 2026 AntoninRaffin,AshleyHill,AdamGleave,AnssiKanervisto,MaximilianErnestus,andNoahDormann.Stable-Baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(268):1–8,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.15115 2026
[15]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

JohnSchulman,FilipWolski,PrafullaDhariwal,AlecRadford,andOlegKlimov. Proximalpolicyoptimizationalgorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[16]

Tom Silver, Kelsey Allen, Josh Tenenbaum, and Leslie Kaelbling

doi: 10.1287/mnsc.12.12.B538. Tom Silver, Kelsey Allen, Josh Tenenbaum, and Leslie Kaelbling. Residual policy learning. InRobotics: Science and Systems XIV,

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.12.12.b538
[17]

Mark Towers, Ariel Kwiatkowski, Jordan Terry, John U

doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.314. Mark Towers, Ariel Kwiatkowski, Jordan Terry, John U. Balis, Gianluca De Cola, Tristan Deleu, et al. Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track,

work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.314 2021
[18]

Reinforcementlearningforsparepartsinventorymanagementwithadeepq-network

JiangjiangWangandYunFongLin. Reinforcementlearningforsparepartsinventorymanagementwithadeepq-network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14110,

work page arXiv
[19]

A versatile multi-agent reinforcement learning benchmark for inventory management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07542,

Xianliang Yang, Zhihao Liu, Wei Jiang, Chuheng Zhang, Li Zhao, Lei Song, and Jiang Bian. A versatile multi-agent reinforcement learning benchmark for inventory management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07542,

work page arXiv