Vehicle Routing Problems for Drone Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, have the potential to significantly reduce the cost and time of making last-mile deliveries and responding to emergencies. Despite this potential, little work has gone into developing vehicle routing problems (VRPs) specifically for drone delivery scenarios. Existing VRPs are insufficient for planning drone deliveries: either multiple trips to the depot are not permitted, leading to solutions with excess drones, or the effect of battery and payload weight on energy consumption is not considered, leading to costly or infeasible routes. We propose two multitrip VRPs for drone delivery that address both issues. One minimizes costs subject to a delivery time limit, while the other minimizes the overall delivery time subject to a budget constraint. We mathematically derive and experimentally validate an energy consumption model for multirotor drones, demonstrating that energy consumption varies approximately linearly with payload and battery weight. We use this approximation to derive mixed integer linear programs for our VRPs. We propose a cost function that considers our energy consumption model and drone reuse, and apply it in a simulated annealing (SA) heuristic for finding suboptimal solutions to practical scenarios. To assist drone delivery practitioners with balancing cost and delivery time, the SA heuristic is used to show that the minimum cost has an inverse exponential relationship with the delivery time limit, and the minimum overall delivery time has an inverse exponential relationship with the budget. Numerical results confirm the importance of reusing drones and optimizing battery size in drone delivery VRPs.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".