Integrated Shift Scheduling and Load Assignment Optimization for Attended Home Delivery
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
In this article, we study an integrated shift scheduling and load assignment optimization problem for attended home delivery. The proposed approach is divided into two phases, each one corresponding to a different planning level: tactical and operational. In the tactical planning, a daily master plan is generated for each courier. This master plan defines the working shifts, the origin–destination pairs to visit, and the number of client requests to serve. In the operational planning, delivery orders are allocated to couriers in real time. The stochastic and dynamic nature of client orders is included in the tactical and operational decision levels, respectively. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach provides robust tactical solutions that easily accommodate fluctuations in client orders, preventing additional costs related to the underutilization of couriers and to the use of external couriers to satisfy all delivery requests, when compared with an approach using the mean demand value. Moreover, these results also indicate that the failure to incorporate robust tactical solutions in the operational planning results in infeasible operational plans that are inadmissible regarding the couriers’ working time (e.g., minimum and maximum numbers of working hours) and work regulations (e.g., allocation of consecutive working hours to the couriers).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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