Solving the Capacitated Location-Routing Problem by a Cooperative Lagrangean Relaxation-Granular Tabu Search Heuristic
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the time in a distribution system, depot location and vehicle routing are interdependent, and recent studies have shown that the overall system cost may be excessive if routing decisions are ignored when locating depots. The location-routing problem (LRP) overcomes this drawback by simultaneously tackling location and routing decisions. This paper presents a cooperative metaheuristic to solve the LRP with capacitated routes and depots. The principle is to alternate between a depot location phase and a routing phase, exchanging information on the most promising edges. In the first phase, the routes and their customers are aggregated into supercustomers, leading to a facility-location problem, which is then solved by a Lagrangean relaxation of the assignment constraints. In the second phase, the routes from the resulting multidepot vehicle-routing problem (VRP) are improved using a granular tabu search (GTS) heuristic. At the end of each global iteration, information about the edges most often used is recorded to be used in the following phases. The method is evaluated on three sets of randomly generated instances and compared with other heuristics and a lower bound. Solutions are obtained in a reasonable amount of time for such a strategic problem and show that this metaheuristic outperforms other methods on various kinds of instances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it