Joint Ground and Aerial Package Delivery Services: A Stochastic Optimization Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, have emerged as a promising mode of fast, energy-efficient, and cost-effective package delivery. A considerable number of works have studied different aspects of drone package delivery service by a supplier, one of which is delivery planning. However, existing works addressing the planning issues consider a simple case of perfect delivery without service interruption, e.g., due to accident, which is common and realistic. Therefore, this paper introduces the joint ground and aerial delivery service optimization and planning (GADOP) framework. The framework explicitly incorporates uncertainty of drone package delivery, i.e., takeoff and breakdown conditions. The GADOP framework aims to minimize the total delivery cost, given practical constraints, e.g., travelling distance limit. Specifically, we formulate the GADOP framework as a three-stage stochastic integer programming model. To deal with the high complexity issue of the problem, a decomposition method is adopted. Then, the performance of the GADOP framework is evaluated by using two data sets including the Solomon benchmark suite and the real data from one of the Singapore logistics companies. The performance evaluation clearly shows that the GADOP framework can achieve significantly lower total payment than that of the baseline methods, which do not take uncertainty into account.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".