Differential evolution algorithm for multi-commodity and multi-level of service hub covering location problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hub location problem involves a network of origins and destinations over which transportation takes place. There are many studies associated with finding the location of hub nodes and the allocation of demand nodes to these located hub nodes to transfer the only one kind of commodity under one level of service. However, in this study, carrying different commodity types from origin to destination under various levels of services (e.g. price, punctuality, reliability or transit time) is studied. Quality of services experienced by users such as speed, convenience, comfort and security of transportation facilities and services is considered as the level of service. In each system, different kinds of commodities with various levels of services can be transmitted. The appropriate level of service that a commodity can be transmitted through is chosen by customer preferences and the specification of the commodity. So, a mixed integer programming formulation for single allocation hub covering location problem, which is based on the idea of transferring multi commodity flows under multi levels of service is presented. These two are applied concepts, multi-commodity and multi-level of service, which make the model's assumptions closer to the real world problems. In addition, a differential evolution algorithm is designed to find near-optimal solutions. The obtained solutions using differential evolution (DE) algorithm (upper bound), where its parameters are tuned by response surface methodology, are compared with exact solutions and computed lower bounds by linear relaxation technique to prove the efficiency of proposed DE algorithm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".