MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403556658 · doi:10.1002/net.22251

Layered Graph Models for the Electric Vehicle Routing Problem With Nonlinear Charging Functions

2024· article· en· W4403556658 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVehicle routing problemNonlinear systemElectric vehicleComputer scienceGraphMathematical optimizationRouting (electronic design automation)MathematicsComputer networkTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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