Layered Graph Models for the Electric Vehicle Routing Problem With Nonlinear Charging Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electric vehicle routing problems (EVRPs) involve the routing of a fleet of electric vehicles (EVs) to visit a set of customers while typically minimizing the total travel and charging time. Due to their limited autonomy, EVs may need to recharge their batteries en‐route at charging stations (CSs). Thus, routing decisions also include which CSs to visit, and how much energy to charge during those visits. These decisions are compounded by the fact that charging times follow a nonlinear charging function with respect to the EV's state of charge (SoC). We propose a layered graph representation for the EVRP with nonlinear charging functions (EVRP‐NL). Specifically, the layers correspond to discretized SoC values. Therefore, the arcs' energy consumption is approximated to match those values. We develop two compact formulations based on the layered graph. Furthermore, we introduced two charging policies that facilitate aligning charging duration with practical considerations. Computational results demonstrate the effectiveness of our formulations. Our best formulation effectively handles instances with up to 40 customers. On those instances, compared to the state‐of‐the‐art compact formulation, our formulation solves 13 more instances to optimality with less than half of the computational time. Considering instances solved by both formulations to optimally, the approximation entailed by our formulation yields a 0.94% deviation on average. Since our best performing formulation is compact, it may be readily used by a broad audience. Furthermore, as the majority of algorithms for the EVPR and its variants are heuristics, our formulation could be beneficial in evaluating the performance of these methods.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".