Modeling a four-layer location-routing problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distribution is an indispensable component of logistics and supply chain management. Location-Routing Problem (LRP) is an NP-hard problem that simultaneously takes into consideration location, allocation, and vehicle routing decisions to design an optimal distribution network. Multi-layer and multi-product LRP is even more complex as it deals with the decisions at multiple layers of a distribution network where multiple products are transported within and between layers of the network. This paper focuses on modeling a complicated four-layer and multi-product LRP which has not been tackled yet. The distribution network consists of plants, central depots, regional depots, and customers. In this study, the structure, assumptions, and limitations of the distribution network are defined and the mathematical optimization programming model that can be used to obtain the optimal solution is developed. Presented by a mixed-integer programming model, the LRP considers the location problem at two layers, the allocation problem at three layers, the vehicle routing problem at three layers, and a transshipment problem. The mathematical model locates central and regional depots, allocates customers to plants, central depots, and regional depots, constructs tours from each plant or open depot to customers, and constructs transshipment paths from plants to depots and from depots to other depots. Considering realistic assumptions and limitations such as producing multiple products, limited production capacity, limited depot and vehicle capacity, and limited traveling distances enables the user to capture the real world situations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".