MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414567829 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.09.037

A Decomposition-Based Framework for Large-Scale Multi-Period Log-Truck Routing and Scheduling: A Case Study in Canadian Forestry

2025· article· en· W4414567829 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdelhakim Abdellaoui, François Aubé, Loubna Benabbou, Issmaïl El Hallaoui, Mouloud Amazouz

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCégep de LévisUniversité du Québec à RimouskiNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRouting (electronic design automation)Scheduling (production processes)Work (physics)HeuristicDecompositionLinear programmingForest industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the complex multi-period log-truck routing and scheduling problem (LTRSP) in the forest industry, proposing an enhanced mathematical programming formulation and a decomposition heuristic to solve large-scale instances. The Canadian forest industry faces significant logistical challenges due to vast distances, seasonal variability, market fluctuations, and environmental concerns. Efficient transportation is essential for maintaining both economic viability and environmental sustainability. This research presents a comprehensive framework for routing and scheduling, starting with an analysis of industry rules to design a routing network. A mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model is then formulated to capture these rules, integrating spatial and temporal constraints. Subsequently, a solving approach, Relax-and-Fix, is applied to historical data provided by a Canadian forest company. The results demonstrate that the framework can generate optimal solutions for daily problems and near-optimal solutions for weekly problems within reasonable computation times. This work ofers an end-to-end framework for tackling LTRSP, developed in collaboration with forest companies and incorporating all their critical business constraints, distinguishing it from existing approaches in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207