A review on cost allocation methods in collaborative transportation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collaboration in transportation between two or more agents is becoming an important approach to find efficient solutions or plans. Efficiency can be measured in, for example, lower cost or more flexibility. An important aspect of the collaboration is to decide on how to share the benefits—for example, cost, profit, or resources. There are many sharing mechanisms or cost allocations proposed in the literature. Some are based on simple proportional rules and others are based on theoretical concepts found in game theory. We provide a survey on cost allocation methods found in the literature on collaborative transportation, including problems on planning, vehicle routing, traveling salesman, distribution, and inventory. A total of 55 scientific articles compose the main part of the survey, most of them published between 2010 and 2015. We identify more than 40 cost allocation methods used in this stream of literature. We describe the theoretical basis for the main methods as well as the cases where they are used. We also report savings from the collaborations when they are based on industrial data. Some directions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it