Optimal drone deployment for cost‐effective and sustainable last‐mile delivery operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Delivery by drones holds significant potential to solve issues (such as high costs, access to remote areas, etc.) faced in last‐mile delivery operations, particularly in the e‐commerce industry. Still, it involves complex issues such as multi‐trip operations, energy estimation, and battery recharge planning. A sound drone delivery problem entails an optimal drone deployment plan with routing details at the lowest possible cost. To this end, this study focuses on formulating a delivery problem that involves multi‐trip drone routing, energy optimization, and travel time optimization problems where energy consumption by drones is modeled as a non‐linear function. We develop a mixed integer non‐linear programming model as an integrated optimization model. This model aims to: (a) maximize revenue by meeting demand completely without leaving idle drones, (b) optimize energy use by drones, and (c) minimize the required drone fleet size for an optimal plan. The proposed model is solved using the Gurobi Solver, which employs data supplied by a well‐known e‐commerce firm. We introduce a two‐phase heuristic solution methodology to tackle larger networks’ complexities. This method consists of the clustering phase (K‐means clustering method) and the optimization phase. The robustness of the developed mathematical modeling is demonstrated by testing with varied large problem instances. The evaluation shows that expanding destination options boosts drone demand until saturation, necessitating more drones. Efficient route planning and fleet adjustments are crucial for meeting rising demand and satisfying customers amidst dense clustering. This model helps e‐commerce manage daily last‐mile drone deliveries and anticipate future growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".