When Does Machine Learning Beat Value Sorting? A Three-Dataset Diagnostic of Exposure-Weighted Shipment Prioritization

arXiv cs.AI Papers

Summary

This paper investigates when machine learning outperforms traditional value sorting for exposure-weighted shipment prioritization using three datasets.

arXiv:2607.18573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Delay-risk models are usually judged by predictive accuracy. What matters in practice is narrower: with capacity to review only a few shipments, which ones should a manager check first? We evaluate whether machine learning clears a demanding no-model baseline: inspect the highest-value shipments first. Across three real supply-chain contexts: SCMS procurement, DataCo logistics, and Olist e-commerce, we use leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation and 1000-sample paired bootstrap confidence intervals. Ranking by predicted delay severity times known value (M1) beats severity-only ranking in all three datasets, yet it does not generally beat value sorting. At a 10% review budget, M1 minus VALUE_ONLY is -5.5 percentage points (pp) for SCMS, +10.1 pp for DataCo, and -4.9 pp for Olist. The divide is consistent with severity learnability: DataCo has R^2 = 0.27 and calibration bias of +0.01 days, whereas SCMS and Olist have R^2 of approximately -0.02 and negative calibration bias. Nested-CV cost-sensitive retraining does not deliver a stable improvement over M1. Rather than proposing a new learning algorithm, this paper presents a deployment diagnostic and evaluation protocol. Value sorting should remain a permanent benchmark, and ML should be deployed only after severity learnability and calibration have been audited and the model clears that gate under leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/22/26, 08:22 AM

# When Does Machine Learning Beat Value Sorting? A Three-Dataset Diagnostic of Exposure-Weighted Shipment Prioritization
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18573](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18573)
Bibliographic Tools

## Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Code, Data, Media

## Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

## Demos

Related Papers

## Recommenders and Search Tools

About arXivLabs

## arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website\.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy\. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them\.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?[**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html)\.

Similar Articles

A Systematic Evaluation of Imbalance Handling Methods in Biomedical Binary Classification

arXiv cs.LG

This paper systematically evaluates five imbalance handling methods (RUS, ROS, SMOTE, re-weighting, direct F1 optimization) on three biomedical datasets (tabular, text, image) using models of varying complexity. Results show that benefits depend on model complexity and data modality, with ROS, re-weighting, and direct F1 optimization being effective for complex models on unstructured data.