Heuristic, Hybrid, and LLM-Assisted Heuristics for Container Yard Strategies Under Incomplete Information: A Simulation-Based Comparison
Source abstract
Abstract
Efficient container stacking is a critical factor for the performance of intermodal terminals. This study evaluates how classical, hybrid, and LLM-assisted heuristic stacking strategies perform when terminals operate under incomplete or uncertain schedule information. A simulation model of a 4 × 5 × 3 yard was developed, comparing three strategies: a layer-based rule (LAY), a hybrid heuristic (SVD), and an adaptive heuristic supported by a large language model (ChatGPT-4), rather than a full ML/RL model. Each scenario (0%, 25%, 50%, and 100% schedule visibility) was repeated 10 times with controlled random seeds. Results show that under full schedule information, the LLM-assisted strategy reduced relocations by up to 35% and crane operating time by 28% compared to deterministic methods. However, its performance degraded with partial visibility, sometimes falling behind the hybrid strategy, which remained more stable across scenarios. Standard deviations confirmed that differences between methods were statistically significant. The findings highlight both the potential and the limitations of LLM-assisted heuristics: they can outperform classical approaches in data-rich environments but may overreact to incomplete inputs without explicit data quality assessment. This study should therefore be regarded as a simulation-based proof-of-concept, with further validation on real operational data required to confirm its applicability.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Maritime Ports and Logistics · Urban and Freight Transport Logistics · Advanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Identec Solutions (2025, April 30). Container Terminal Yard Operations: What Are Your Blind Spots?. Available online: https://www.identecsolutions.com/news/container-terminal-yard-operations.
2. ABI Research (2025, April 30). What Is a Yard Management System (YMS)?. Available online: https://www.abiresearch.com/blog/yard-management-system-yms.
3. A productivity and efficiency analysis of container ports in lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries
4. Inter-American Development Bank (2025, April 30). The Historical Relationship Between Port Inefficiency and Transport Costs in the Developing World. Available online: https://publications.iadb.org/en/historical-relationship-between-port-inefficiency-and-transport-costs-developing-world.
5. McKinsey & Company (2025, April 30). How to Rethink Pricing at Container Terminals. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/logistics/our-insights/how-to-rethink-pricing-at-container-terminals.
6. Storage yard operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.054 ↗
7. Segregating space allocation models for container inventories in port container terminals10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00028-0 ↗
8. Container relocation problem with time windows for container departure10.1016/j.ejor.2016.01.055 ↗
9. Vacca, I., Bierlaire, M., and Salani, M. (2025, April 30). Yard Optimization at Sea Container Terminals. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37456575_Yard_Optimization_at_Sea_Container_Terminals.
10. Jo, J.H., and Kim, S. (2019). Key performance indicator development for ship-to-shore crane performance assessment in container terminal operations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 8.10.3390/jmse8010006 ↗
11. Wu, K.C., and Ting, C.J. (2010, January 15–17). A beam search algorithm for minimizing reshuffle operations at container yards. Proceedings of the International Conference on Logistics and Maritime Systems, Busan, South Korea.
12. MILP model and a rolling horizon algorithm for crane scheduling in a hybrid storage container terminal10.1155/2019/4739376 ↗
13. A branch-and-price heuristic algorithm for the ART and external truck scheduling problem in an automated container terminal with a parallel layout10.1016/j.tre.2024.103464 ↗
14. Simulation-Based Optimization for Storage Allocation Problem of Outbound Containers in Automated Container Terminals10.1155/2015/548762 ↗
15. Flexible storage yard management in container terminals under uncertainty10.1016/j.cie.2023.109753 ↗
16. Optimizing Container Terminal Operations: A Comparative Analysis of Hierarchical and Integrated Solution Approaches
17. Kolangiammal, S., Prabha, S., Sivalakshmi, P., Kalaichelvi, S., and Sujatha, S. (2024, January 3–5). Transforming yard management for optimizing efficiency through IoT and AI integration. Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC), Kirtipur, Nepal.10.1109/I-SMAC61858.2024.10714882 ↗
18. Optimization of container relocation operations in port container terminals
19. The inbound container space allocation in the automated container terminals10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115014 ↗
20. Wu, Y., Wu, L., Yang, X., Chen, S., and Xie, H. Adaptive Allocation Method of Terminal Container Parameters Based on Evolutionary Game. Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Computing for Advanced Applications, Hong Kong, 8–10 July 2014, Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-97-7004-5_2.
21. Robust optimization algorithm for integrated crane assignment and scheduling in slab yard with uncertain arrival time10.1080/00207543.2024.2388836 ↗
22. Deep reinforcement learning assisted genetic programming ensemble hyper-heuristics for dynamic scheduling of container port trucks10.1109/TEVC.2024.3381042 ↗
23. Real-Time Monitoring and Optimal Resource Allocation for Automated Container Terminals: A Digital Twin Application at the Yangshan Port10.1155/2023/6909801 ↗
24. Van Twiller, J., Grbic, D., and Jensen, R.M. (2025). AI2STOW: End-to-End Deep Reinforcement Learning to Construct Master Stowage Plans under Demand Uncertainty. arXiv.
25. Chen, X., Qu, R., Dong, J., Bai, R., and Jin, Y. (2025). Genetic Programming with Reinforcement Learning Trained Transformer for Real-World Dynamic Scheduling Problems. arXiv.
26. Jahangard, M., Xie, Y., and Feng, Y. (2025). Leveraging machine learning and optimization models for enhanced seaport efficiency. Marit. Econ. Logist., 1–42.10.1057/s41278-024-00309-w ↗
27. Tideworks Technology (2025, April 30). The Future of AI and Machine Learning in Terminal Operations. Available online: https://tideworks.com/future-ai-machine-learning-terminal-operations/.
28. Reinforcement learning approach for outbound container stacking in container terminals10.1016/j.cie.2025.111069 ↗
29. Modelling and analyzing the stacking strategies in automated container terminals10.1016/j.tre.2024.103608 ↗
30. A multi-agent reinforcement learning approach for ART adaptive control in automated container terminals10.1016/j.cie.2024.110264 ↗
31. Flexible yard management in container terminals for uncertain retrieving sequence10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105794 ↗
32. Optimization of transport network using mathematical methods10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.885 ↗
33. Coordinated optimization of equipment operations in a container terminal10.1007/s10696-019-09366-3 ↗
34. Zając, M. (2021). The model of reducing operations time at a container terminal by assigning places and sequence of operations. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app112412012 ↗
35. Turney, D. (2025). AI Is Just as Overconfident and Biased as Humans Can Be, Study Shows, Live Science. Available online: https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-is-just-as-overconfident-and-biased-as-humans-can-be-study-shows.
36. INFORMS (2025, April 30). AI thinks like us, flaws and all: New study finds ChatGPT mirrors human decision biases in half the tests. INFORMS, Available online: https://www.informs.org/News-Room/INFORMS-Releases/News-Releases/AI-Thinks-Like-Us-Flaws-and-All-New-Study-Finds-ChatGPT-Mirrors-Human-Decision-Biases-in-Half-the-Tests.