MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982515303 · doi:10.3390/su11216055

A Memetic Algorithm for the Green Vehicle Routing Problem

2019· article· en· W2982515303 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Peng, Yuan Zhang, Yuvraj Gajpal, Xiding Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrossoverMemetic algorithmMathematical optimizationVehicle routing problemPopulationComputer scienceLocal search (optimization)Bees algorithmRouting (electronic design automation)MetaheuristicArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The green vehicle routing problem is a variation of the classic vehicle routing problem in which the transportation fleet is composed of electric vehicles with limited autonomy in need of recharge during their duties. As an NP-hard problem, this problem is very difficult to solve. In this paper, we first propose a memetic algorithm (MA)—a population-based algorithm—to tackle this problem. To be more specific, we incorporate an adaptive local search procedure based on a reward and punishment mechanism inspired by reinforcement learning to effectively manage the multiple neighborhood moves and guide the search, an effective backbone-based crossover operator to generate the feasible child solutions to obtain a better trade-off between intensification and diversification of the search, and a longest common subsequence-based population updating strategy to effectively manage the population. The purpose of this research is to propose a highly effective heuristic for solving the green vehicle routing problem and bring new ideas for this type of problem. Experimental results show that our algorithm is highly effective in comparison with the current state-of-the-art algorithms. In particular, our algorithm is able to find the best solutions for 84 out of the 92 instances. Key component of the approach is analyzed to evaluate its impact on the proposed algorithm and to identify the appropriate search mechanism for this type of problem.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207