MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414807895 · doi:10.1016/j.cor.2025.107295

On-demand meal delivery: Drone scheduling with battery replacement optimization

2025· article· en· W4414807895 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenqian Liu, Yandong He, Ginger Y. Ke

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Operations Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShenzhen Polytechnic
KeywordsDroneBattery (electricity)Scheduling (production processes)Context (archaeology)DowntimeInteger programmingVariable (mathematics)Variable neighborhood search

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drones have become a promising solution for on-demand delivery thanks to their ability to travel fast and navigate without road restrictions. In the context of direct meal delivery using drones, it is common practice to replace the drone’s battery after each round trip between the central launch site and customer locations to prevent power interruptions. This practice can lead to frequent battery replacements, resulting in increased downtime and decreased drone utilization. To enhance the efficiency of drone delivery, we take into account load-dependent energy consumption for the drones and optimize battery replacement along with drone scheduling. A mixed integer programming formulation is constructed to mathematically capture the problem. Additionally, we develop a time-expanded network flow method and a tailored hybrid variable neighborhood search algorithm to solve the problem exactly and heuristically. Computational studies validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed operational model and solution approaches. Our results indicate that optimizing battery replacement can induce an increase in on-time deliveries by up to 7.69% compared to replacing batteries after each return, and by 14.29% compared to only replacing them when energy levels are low. Such benefits are particularly significant in scenarios with tighter delivery deadlines and longer battery replacement times.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueComputers & Operations ResearchSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207