The Fourth-Party Logistics Routing Problem Using Ant Colony System-Improved Grey Wolf Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fourth-party logistics routing problem (4PLRP) is an important issue in the operation of fourth-party logistics (4PL). In this paper, the study of fourth-party logistics (4PL) path optimization considers that more third-party logistics (3PL) undertake transportation tasks. Under the condition that the 3PL transportation time, transportation cost, node transit time, and transit cost are uncertain, 4PL provides customers with a set of transportation solutions to transport transportation tasks from the initial node to the destination node according to the customer’s risk aversion preference. The transportation scheme not only meets the customer’s time and cost requirements but also meets the carrying capacity and reputation constraints of 3PL. Between the two nodes, one or more 3PLs will undertake the transportation task. The customer’s risk preference will be measured by the ratio utility theory (RUT). An ant colony system-improved grey wolf optimization (ACS-IGWO) is designed to solve the model, and the grey wolf optimization (GWO) is improved by the convergence factor and the proportional weight. Problem analysis is conducted through simulation experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".