A Branch-and-Cut Algorithm for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Station Location Problem with Routing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the limited range of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and the sparsity of the available alternative refueling stations (AFSs), AFV drivers cooperatively deviate from their paths to refuel. This deviation is bounded by the drivers’ tolerance. Taking this behavior into account, the refueling station location problem with routing (RSLP-R) is defined as maximizing the AFV flow that can be accommodated in a road network by locating a given number of AFSs while respecting the range limitation of the vehicles and the deviation tolerance of the drivers. In this study, we develop a natural model for the RSLP-R based on the notion of length-bounded cuts, analyze the polyhedral properties of this model, and develop a branch-and-cut algorithm as an exact solution approach. Extensive computational experiments show that the algorithm significantly improves the solution times with respect to previously developed exact solution methods and extends the size of the instances solved to optimality. Using our methodology, we investigate the tradeoffs between covered vehicle flow and deviation tolerance of the drivers and present insights on deviation characteristics of drivers in a case study in California.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 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".