Robust Partitioning for Stochastic Multivehicle Routing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of coordinating a fleet of vehicles so that all demand points on a territory are serviced and the workload is most evenly distributed among the vehicles is a hard one. For this reason, it is often an effective strategy to first divide the service region and impose that each vehicle is only responsible for its own subregion. This heuristic also has the practical advantage that over time, drivers become more effective at serving their territory and customers. In this paper, we assume that client locations are unknown at the time of partitioning the territory and that each of them will be drawn identically and independently according to a distribution that is actually also unknown. In practice, it might be impossible to identify precisely the distribution if, for instance, information about the demand is limited to historical data. Our approach suggests partitioning the region with respect to the worst-case distribution that satisfies first- and second-order moments information. As a side product, our analysis constructs for each subregion a closed-form expression for the worst-case density function, thus providing useful insights about what affects the completion time most heavily. The successful implementation of our approach relies on two branch-and-bound algorithms: whereas the first finds a globally optimal partition of a convex polygon into two convex subregions, the second finds a local optimum for the harder n-partitioning problem. Finally, simulations of a parcel delivery problem will demonstrate that our data-driven approach makes better use of historical data as it becomes available.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".