MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119097848 · doi:10.1287/trsc.1090.0272

Branch and Cut and Price for the Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows

2009· article· en· W2119097848 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn generationPickupMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Branch and cutRelaxation (psychology)Linear programming relaxationLagrangian relaxationComputer sciencePath (computing)Integer programmingLinear programmingShortest path problemBranch and priceVehicle routing problemColumn (typography)MathematicsRouting (electronic design automation)Theoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the pickup and delivery problem with time windows vehicle routes must be designed to satisfy a set of transportation requests, each involving a pickup and delivery location, under capacity, time window, and precedence constraints. This paper introduces a new branch-and-cut-and-price algorithm in which lower bounds are computed by solving through column generation the linear programming relaxation of a set partitioning formulation. Two pricing subproblems are considered in the column generation algorithm: an elementary and nonelementary shortest path problem. Valid inequalities are added dynamically to strengthen the relaxations. Some of the previously proposed inequalities for the pickup and delivery problem with time windows are also shown to be implied by the set partitioning formulation. Computational experiments indicate that the proposed algorithm outperforms a recent branch-and-cut 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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