Multidepot Recycling Vehicle Routing Problem with Resource Sharing and Time Window Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to provide tactical and operational decisions in multidepot recycling logistics networks with consideration of resource sharing (RS) and time window assignment (TWA) strategies. The RS strategy contributes to efficient resource allocation and utilization among recycling centers (RCs). The TWA strategy involves assigning time windows to customers to enhance the operational efficiency of logistics networks. A biobjective mathematical model is established to minimize the total operating cost and number of vehicles for solving the multidepot recycling vehicle routing problem with RS and TWA (MRVRPRSTWA). A hybrid heuristic algorithm including 3D k-means clustering algorithm and nondominated sorting genetic algorithm- (NSGA-) II (NSGA-II) is designed. The 3D k-means clustering algorithm groups customers into clusters on the basis of their spatial and temporal distances to reduce the computational complexity in optimizing the multidepot logistics networks. In comparison with NSGA algorithm, the NSGA-II algorithm incorporates an elitist strategy, which can improve the computational speed and robustness. In this study, the performance of the NSGA-II algorithm is compared with the other two algorithms. Results show that the proposed algorithm is superior in solving MRVRPRSTWA. The proposed model and algorithm are applied to an empirical case study in Chongqing City, China, to test their applicability in real logistics operations. Four different scenarios regarding whether the RS and TWA strategies are included or not are developed to test the efficacy of the proposed methods. The results indicate that the RS and TWA strategies can optimize the recycling services and resource allocation and utilization and enhance the operational efficiency, thus promoting the sustainable development of the logistics industry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".