Formulations and Branch-and-Cut Algorithms for Multivehicle Production and Inventory Routing Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inventory routing problem (IRP) and the production routing problem (PRP) are two difficult problems arising in the planning of integrated supply chains. These problems are solved in an attempt to jointly optimize production, inventory, distribution, and routing decisions. Although several studies have proposed exact algorithms to solve the single-vehicle problems, the multivehicle aspect is often neglected because of its complexity. We introduce multivehicle PRP and IRP formulations, with and without a vehicle index, to solve the problems under both the maximum level (ML) and order-up-to level (OU) inventory replenishment policies. The vehicle index formulations are further improved using symmetry breaking constraints; the nonvehicle index formulations are strengthened by several cuts. A heuristic based on an adaptive large neighborhood search technique is also developed to determine initial solutions, and branch-and-cut algorithms are proposed to solve the different formulations. The results show that the vehicle index formulations are superior in finding optimal solutions, whereas the nonvehicle index formulations are generally better at providing good lower bounds on larger instances. IRP and PRP instances with up to 35 customers, three periods, and three vehicles can be solved to optimality within two hours for the ML policy. By using parallel computing, the algorithms could solve the instances for the same policy with up to 45 and 50 customers, three periods, and three vehicles for the IRP and PRP, respectively. For the more difficult IRP (PRP) under the OU policy, the algorithms could handle instances with up to 30 customers, three (six) periods, and three vehicles on a single core machine, and up to 45 (35) customers, three (six) periods, and three vehicles on a multicore machine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".