MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391857327 · doi:10.1145/3615895.3628166

Reinforcement Learning for Intermodal Transportation Planning with Time Windows and Limited Cargo Capacity

2023· article· en· W4391857327 on OpenAlexaff
Hadi Aghazadeh, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningReinforcementComputer scienceTransport engineeringCapacity planningEngineeringStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the enhancement of practical intermodal transportation efficiency by synergizing train and truck utilization for the seamless movement of freights across diverse geographical locations in a country. The core challenge revolves around determining the optimal allocation of freights, either individually by trucks or collectively with train mode in each location, while accounting for time windows constraints associated with each order and the inherent capacity limitations of the transportation modes. To tackle this complex optimization problem, we employ the renowned Q-Learning reinforcement learning algorithm. This enables the derivation of an optimal dispatch policy predicated on the selection of appropriate transportation modes. In order to establish a robust benchmark for comparison, we introduce three baseline metaheuristic models: Tabu Search, Simulated Annealing, and a hybrid approach merging Tabu Search with Simulated Annealing. Our methodologies undergo rigorous testing using realistic datasets of varying sizes. The outcomes distinctly demonstrate the superior performance of Q-learning over the baseline models. Furthermore, the Q-Learning approach showcases its efficacy in real-time scenario handling, even when confronted with substantial intermodal transportation challenges on a large scale.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207