MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311519325 · doi:10.1002/net.22133

Two new mixed‐integer programming models for the integrated train formation and shipment path optimization problem

2022· article· en· W4311519325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainInteger programmingArc routingComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)Path (computing)Mathematical optimizationSortingYardInteger (computer science)Linear programmingOperations researchMathematicsAlgorithmComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Railcars are known as the heart of the freight rail transportation industry. Hence, any improvements in their operations can lead to sharp reductions in various operating costs. One of the most critical operations on railcars is blocking and routing their transportation. Railway companies face continuous challenged about what blocks should be formed to carry shipments across different origin–destination pairs (O–D pairs) and reclassify them in intermediate yards to minimize transportation reclassification costs. In addition, it is necessary to determine train service between O–D pairs and the number of trains. Along with the shipment routing plans, this problem is called train formation and shipment path optimization (TFSP). In TFSP, some substructure and rail network operational constraints should be considered, including link capacity, classification capacity, the number of sorting tracks, and path length. This paper presents two arc‐based mixed‐integer linear programming (MILP) models to formulate the TFSP problem. To the best of the authors' knowledge, no MILP arc‐based model has been published for the problem that does not need any preprocess before solving. Computational results of solving models on the datasets showed that the first model could obtain a feasible solution with a maximum 0.05% gap up to 48 yards instance. The second model also could find a solution with a small gap compared to the optimal solution in a reasonable time for instances up to 128 yards. Also, the proposed models were compared to the best methods in the literature, and their superiority was shown.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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