Bi‐objective stochastic programming models for determining depot locations in disaster relief operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents two‐stage bi‐objective stochastic programming models for disaster relief operations. We consider a problem that occurs in the aftermath of a natural disaster: a transportation system for supplying disaster victims with relief goods must be established. We propose bi‐objective optimization models with a monetary objective and humanitarian objective. Uncertainty in the accessibility of the road network is modeled by a discrete set of scenarios. The key features of our model are the determination of locations for intermediate depots and acquisition of vehicles. Several model variants are considered. First, the operating budget can be fixed at the first stage for all possible scenarios or determined for each scenario at the second stage. Second, the assignment of vehicles to a depot can be either fixed or free. Third, we compare a heterogeneous vehicle fleet to a homogeneous fleet. We study the impact of the variants on the solutions. The set of Pareto‐optimal solutions is computed by applying the adaptive Epsilon‐constraint method. We solve the deterministic equivalents of the two‐stage stochastic programs using the MIP‐solver CPLEX.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".