Exact Algorithms for Electric Vehicle-Routing Problems with Time Windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective route planning for battery electric commercial vehicle (ECV) fleets has to take into account their limited autonomy and the possibility of visiting recharging stations during the course of a route. In this paper, we consider four variants of the electric vehicle-routing problem with time windows: (i) at most a single recharge per route is allowed, and batteries are fully recharged on visit of a recharging station; (ii) multiple recharges per route, full recharges only; (iii) at most a single recharge per route, and partial battery recharges are possible; and (iv) multiple, partial recharges. For each variant, we present exact branch-price-and-cut algorithms that rely on customized monodirectional and bidirectional labeling algorithms for generating feasible vehicle routes. In computational studies, we find that all four variants are solvable for instances with up to 100 customers and 21 recharging stations. This success can be attributed to the tailored resource extension functions (REFs) that enable efficient labeling with constant time feasibility checking and strong dominance rules, even if these REFs are intricate and rather elaborate to derive. The studies also highlight the superiority of the bidirectional labeling algorithms compared to the monodirectional ones. Finally, we find that allowing multiple as well as partial recharges both help to reduce routing costs and the number of employed vehicles in comparison to the variants with single and with full recharges.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".