Hardness of Pricing Routes for Two-Stage Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems with Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the Difficulty of Pricing Routes for Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems Many approaches exist for dealing with the uncertainty in the vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands (VRPSD), but the most popular approach models the VRPSD as a two-stage stochastic program where a recourse policy prescribes actions that handle when the realized demands exceed the vehicle capacity. Similarly to other VRP variants, some state-of-the-art algorithms for the VRPSD use set-partitioning formulations that generate variables (routes) via a pricing problem. All of these algorithms, however, have strong assumptions on the probability distribution of customer demands, a simplification that might not be realistic in some applications. In “Hardness of Pricing Routes for Two-Stage Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems with Scenarios,” Ota and Fukasawa examine the challenges associated with solving the pricing problem of the VRPSD when the customer demands are given by scenarios. They demonstrate that the VRPSD pricing problem is strongly NP-hard for a wide variety of recourse policies and route relaxations. This highlights the difficulty of developing efficient pricing algorithms for the VRPSD with scenario-based demand models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".