AI-powered inventory optimization models: a strategic framework for ‎improving stock management in US supply chains

  • Authors

    • MD Rokibul Hasan MBA Business Analytics, Gannon University, Erie, PA, USA
    • Babul Sarker Master of Science in Business Analytics (MSBA), Trine University, Angola, Indiana, USA
    • Kamana Parvej Mishu Master of Science in Engineering Management, Trine University, Angola, Indiana, USA
    • Md Anisur Rahman Manufacturing Engineer, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL-61455‎
    • Reza E Rabbi Shawon MBA Business Analytics, Gannon University, Erie, PA
    • Pravakar Debnath School of Business, Westcliff University, Irvine, California, USA
    https://doi.org/10.14419/twwx4k03

    Received date: December 26, 2025

    Accepted date: January 18, 2026

    Published date: January 23, 2026

  • Demand Forecasting; Explainable AI; Inventory Optimization; Supply Chains; Retail

  • Abstract

    Retail inventory management depends on dependable demand forecasts plus inventory rules that balance holding cost, ordering cost, and ‎stockout risk under uncertainty. Advanced machine learning models now appear frequently in demand forecasting research. Their real value ‎emerges only when forecast accuracy, uncertainty representation, and interpretability connect clearly to operational inventory outcomes. This ‎study investigates how forecasting approaches relate to inventory performance within one coherent, explainable evaluation framework. This ‎work develops an end-to-end inventory optimization framework using publicly available US retail demand, pricing, and calendar data. The ‎framework integrates feature-engineered demand forecasting with baseline statistical methods, machine learning models, and probabilistic ‎forecasting through LightGBM quantile regression. Forecast outputs feed directly into an (s, S) inventory policy optimized through simulation. Evaluation relies on rolling-origin back testing, inventory cost measures, fill rate, stockout counts, robustness experiments, and SHAP-‎based explainability. For the selected high-volume SKU, exponential smoothing produced the lowest point forecast error, exceeding naive ‎benchmarks plus a LightGBM point forecasting model. LightGBM quantile regression showed higher point error than exponential smoothing, while offering useful demand uncertainty ranges. Inventory simulations revealed policy parameters plus cost assumptions exerted greater influence on service levels plus stockouts than small gains in forecast accuracy. Back testing showed that conservative inventory policies ‎maintained high fill rates even when driven by simple forecasts. Explainability results showed recent demand features plus seasonal signals ‎dominated machine learning predictions, while a linear surrogate model reproduced most model behavior. The findings show inventory ‎outcomes depend primarily on policy design, cost calibration, and uncertainty treatment rather than forecasting model sophistication. Accurate point forecasts alone fail to guarantee effective inventory control. The proposed framework emphasizes integrated evaluation, simulation, ‎and explainability as essential components when applying AI-based forecasting to retail inventory decisions‎.

  • References

    1. Baryannis, G., Dani, S., & Antoniou, G. (2019). Predictive analytics and artificial intelligence in supply chain management: A review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 137, 106024.
    2. Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2021). Supply chain management: Strategy, planning, and operation (8th ed.). Pearson.
    3. Choi, T. M., Wallace, S. W., & Wang, Y. (2018). Big data analytics in operations management. Production and Operations Management, 27(10), 1868–1888. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12838.
    4. Graves, S. C. (1999). A single-item inventory model for a nonstationary demand process. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 1(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1.1.50.
    5. Guajardo, M., & Rönnqvist, M. (2016). A review of cost and profit allocation for collaborative logistics. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12205.
    6. Guha, P., Sardar, S., & Mondal, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence in inventory management: A review and future scope. Journal of Computational and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering, 10(1), 71–84.
    7. Hyndman, R. J., & Athanasopoulos, G. (2021). Forecasting: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). OTexts.
    8. Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. In-ternational Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904–2915. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727.
    9. Leung, S. C. H., & Ng, W. L. (2007). A stochastic programming approach for multi-site aggregate production planning. European Journal of Opera-tional Research, 181(1), 245–257.
    10. Lim, B., Arik, S. O., Loeff, N., & Pfister, T. (2021). Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. Interna-tional Journal of Forecasting, 37(4), 1748–1764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.03.012.
    11. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774.
    12. Makridakis, S., & Hibon, M. (2000). The M3-Competition: Results, conclusions, and implications. International Journal of Forecasting, 16(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00057-1.
    13. Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2020). The M4 Competition: Results, findings, conclusion, and way forward. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.04.014.
    14. Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable machine learning: A guide for making black box models explainable (2nd ed.). Leanpub.
    15. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). “Why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1135–1144). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778.
    16. Silver, E. A., & Bischak, D. P. (2011). On the robustness of simple (s, S) policies. Operations Research Letters, 39(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2011.01.003.
    17. Silver, E. A., Pyke, D. F., & Thomas, D. J. (2016). Inventory and production management in supply chains (4th ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315374406.
    18. Syntetos, A. A., Boylan, J. E., & Disney, S. M. (2009). Forecasting for inventory planning: A 50-year review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, S149–S160. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.173.
    19. Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12010.
    20. Zipkin, P. H. (2000). Foundations of inventory management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Hasan, M. R., Sarker, B., Mishu, K. P., Rahman, M. A., Shawon, R. E. R., & Debnath, P. (2026). AI-powered inventory optimization models: a strategic framework for ‎improving stock management in US supply chains. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 13(1), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.14419/twwx4k03