The Electric Vehicle Routing Problem with Capacitated Charging Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric vehicle routing problems (E-VRPs) deal with routing a fleet of electric vehicles (EVs) to serve a set of customers while minimizing an operational criterion, for example, cost or time. The feasibility of the routes is constrained by the autonomy of the EVs, which may be recharged along the route. Much of the E-VRP research neglects the capacity of charging stations (CSs) and thus implicitly assumes that an unlimited number of EVs can be simultaneously charged at a CS. In this paper, we model and solve E-VRPs considering these capacity restrictions. In particular, we study an E-VRP with nonlinear charging functions, multiple charging technologies, en route charging, and variable charging quantities while explicitly accounting for the number of chargers available at privately managed CSs. We refer to this problem as the E-VRP with nonlinear charging functions and capacitated stations (E-VRP-NL-C). We introduce a continuous-time model formulation for the problem. We then introduce an algorithmic framework that iterates between two main components: (1) the route generator, which uses an iterated local search algorithm to build a pool of high-quality routes, and (2) the solution assembler, which applies a branch-and-cut algorithm to combine a subset of routes from the pool into a solution satisfying the capacity constraints. We compare four assembly strategies on a set of instances. We show that our algorithm effectively deals with the E-VRP-NL-C. Furthermore, considering the uncapacitated version of the E-VRP-NL-C, our solution method identifies new best-known solutions for 80 of 120 instances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".