MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098559645 · doi:10.1142/s0129626403001598

PARALLEL ALGORITHMS FOR VEHICLE ROUTING PROBLEMS

2003· article· en· W2098559645 on OpenAlexaff
Arvind Gupta, Ramesh Krishnamurti

Bibliographic record

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTime complexityRouting (electronic design automation)AlgorithmVehicle routing problemCrewParallel algorithmRouting tableDestination-Sequenced Distance Vector routingPath (computing)Parallel computingComputer networkLink-state routing protocolRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle routing problems involve the navigation of one or more vehicles through a network of locations. Locations have associated handling times as well as time windows during which they are active. The arcs connecting locations have time costs associated with them. In this paper, we consider two different problems in single vehicle routing. The first is to find least time cost routes between all pairs of nodes in a network for navigating vehicles; we call this the all pairs routing problem. We show that there is an O( log3n) time parallel algorithm using a polynomial number of processors for this problem on a CREW PRAM. We next consider the problem in which a vehicle services all locations in a network. Here, locations can be passed through at any time but only serviced during their time window. The general problem is [Formula: see text] -complete under even fairly stringent restrictions but polynomial algorithms have been developed for some special cases. In particular, when the network is a line, there is no time cost in servicing a location, and all time windows are unbounded at either their lower or upper end, O(n2) algorithms have been developed. We show that under the same conditions, we can reduce this problem to the all pairs routing problem and therefore obtain an O( log3n) time parallel algorithm on a CREW PRAM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParallel Processing LettersSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207