MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174884755 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i13.17424

A Complexity-theoretic Analysis of Green Pickup-and-Delivery Problems

2021· article· en· W3174884755 on OpenAlexafffund
Xing Tan, Jimmy Xiangji Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPickupHeuristicsComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Mathematical optimizationVehicle routing problemComputational complexity theoryRouting (electronic design automation)MathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a Green Pickup-and-Delivery problem (GPD), vehicles traveling in a transport network achieving pickup-and-delivery tasks are in particular subject to the two \textit{green} constraints: limited vehicle fuel capacity thus short vehicle traveling range, and limited availability of refueling infrastructure for the vehicles. GPD adds additional but probably insignificant computational complexity to the classic and already NP-hard Pickup-and-Delivery problem and Vehicle Routing Problem. Nevertheless, we demonstrate in this paper an inherent intractability of these green components themselves. More precisely, we show that GPD problems whose total constraints are reduced to almost the green ones only, remain to be NP-complete in the strong sense. We figure out a specifically constrained variant of GPD that, however, is weakly NP-complete -- a practical pseudo-polynomial time algorithm solving the variant problem is identified. Insight obtained from this complexity-theoretic analysis would shed light for a deeper understanding of GPDs, and on better development of heuristics for solving these problems, leading to promisingly many real-world applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207