Stochastic Last-Mile Delivery with Crowd-Shipping and Mobile Depots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a two-tier last-mile delivery model that optimally selects mobile depot locations in advance of full information about the availability of crowd-shippers and then transfers packages to crowd-shippers for the final shipment to the customers. Uncertainty in crowd-shipper availability is incorporated by modeling the problem as a two-stage stochastic integer program. Enhanced decomposition solution algorithms including branch-and-cut and cut-and-project frameworks are developed. A risk-averse approach is compared against a risk-neutral approach by assessing conditional-value-at-risk. A detailed computational study based on the City of Toronto is conducted. The deterministic version of the model outperforms a capacitated vehicle routing problem on average by 20%. For the stochastic model, decomposition algorithms usually discover near-optimal solutions within two hours for instances up to a size of 30 mobile depot locations, 40 customers, and 120 crowd-shippers. The cut-and-project approach outperforms the branch-and-cut approach by up to 85% in the risk-averse setting in certain instances. The stochastic model provides solutions that are 3.35%–6.08% better than the deterministic model, and the improvements are magnified with increased uncertainty in crowd-shipper availability. A risk-averse approach leads the operator to send more mobile depots or postpone customer deliveries to reduce the risk of high penalties for nondelivery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".