Routing electric vehicles with a single recharge per route
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Driven by environmental considerations, regulations on vehicle emissions, and the offer of major subsidies, electric commercial vehicles (ECVs) are receiving ever stronger attention in logistics companies. Route planning for ECV fleets requires consideration of the special characteristics of ECVs, like limited driving range and the potential need to recharge en route at dedicated recharging stations. From a practical viewpoint, the number of recharge operations of each vehicle can very often be restricted to one recharge per route because (i) typical route distances in the most important application areas of ECVs, like small package shipping and food or beverage distribution, do not require more than one recharge given the current driving range of ECVs, and (ii) operations managers are very reluctant to plan vehicle routes with two or more recharges because recharging operations are perceived as unproductive idle times. We develop a simple hybrid of large neighborhood search and granular tabu search to solve the resulting electric vehicle‐routing problem with time windows and single recharge (EVRPTWS), considering the possibility of both full and partial recharge. The heuristic works on routes represented as customer sequences, and recharge operations are implicitly considered by determining the recharging position in the route, the recharging station to visit, and the amount to be recharged in optimal fashion. We discuss how our algorithm can be extended to handle nonlinear recharging times, different recharging times per station, and time‐dependent waiting times at stations. In numerical studies on EVRPTWS instances from the literature, the method provides optimal or near‐optimal solutions for instances with up to 100 customers within reasonable runtimes. Additional studies investigate the cost savings potential of partial recharges in comparison to full recharges in the presence of time‐window constraints, and examine the factors that influence this cost saving potential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".