MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919318685 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2019.2.002

A hybrid algorithm for the multi-depot vehicle scheduling problem arising in public transportation

2019· article· en· W2919318685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
César Augusto Marín Moreno, Luis Miguel Escobar‐Falcón, Rubén Iván Bolaños, Anand Subramanian, Antonio Hernando Escobar Zuluaga, Mauricio Granada Echeverri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Tecnológica de PereiraDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsDepotScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceJob shop schedulingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsComputer networkRouting (electronic design automation)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a hybrid algorithm is proposed to solve the Vehicle Scheduling Problem with Multiple Depots. The proposed methodology uses a genetic algorithm, initialized with three specialized constructive procedures. The solution generated by this first approach is then refined by means of a Set Partitioning (SP) model, whose variables (columns) correspond to the current itineraries of the final population. The SP approach possibly improves the incumbent solution which is then provided as an initial point to a well-known MDVSP model. Both the SP and MDVSP models are solved with the help of a mixed integer programming (MIP) solver. The algorithm is tested in benchmark instances consisting of 2, 3 and 5 depots, and a service load ranging from 100 to 500. The results obtained showed that the proposed algorithm was capable of finding the optimal solution in most cases when considering a time limit of 500 seconds. The methodology is also applied to solve a real-life instance that arises in the transportation system in Colombia (2 depots and 719 services), resulting in a decrease of the required fleet size and a balanced allocation of services, thus reducing deadhead trips.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207