MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508993989 · doi:10.1109/jsyst.2016.2601058

A Game Theoretic Approach for the Real-Life Multiple-Criterion Vehicle Routing Problem With Multiple Time Windows

2016· article· en· W2508993989 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Slim Belhaiza

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Systems Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
KeywordsTabu searchVehicle routing problemMathematical optimizationNash equilibriumComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)HeuristicPareto principleMulti-objective optimizationGame theorySet (abstract data type)Operations researchMathematicsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new framework for the optimization of real-life multiple-objective vehicle routing problems with multiple time windows. This framework uses a hybrid variable neighborhood tabu search heuristic that chooses Pareto nondominated solutions from the search space of solutions that satisfy a set of Nash equilibrium conditions for a multiple-agent game theory model. Even though the framework is general and can tackle different classes of vehicle routing problems, it is herein tested on three objectives: minimizing the total travel cost (expressed in time units), maximizing the minimal customers’ utility, and maximizing the minimal drivers’ utility. The results on real-life instances provided by a Canadian transportation company highlight the benefits of the multiple-criteria model; an important motivation to the transportation industry for its real-life implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Systems JournalSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207