MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921793134 · doi:10.1016/j.cor.2025.107198

Integrated and sequential algorithms for the robust two-echelon location-routing problem under demand uncertainty

2025· article· en· W6921793134 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Operations Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsGLS Industries (Canada)Université Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Benchmark (surveying)Robust optimizationHeuristicFacility location problemVehicle routing problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the two-echelon capacitated location-routing problem (2E-CLRP) when faced with demand uncertainty. We assume that the customer’s demands at the second echelon are uncertain and design a two-echelon distribution network where open satellites, served from a single depot, have sufficient capacities to handle the variation in demand. At the same time, the planned routes must remain feasible for all values of demand within an uncertainty set. We propose a robust counterpart for an integrated model of the 2E-CLRP and solve it using an adaptive large neighborhood search heuristic and a branch-and-cut algorithm. We also design four non-integrated solution approaches based on the robust counterparts for the 2E-CLRP subproblems, including the vehicle routing problem (VRP), the facility location problem (FLP), the location-routing problem (LRP), and the two-echelon FLP (2E-FLP). The importance of an integrated approach to 2E-CLRP is demonstrated by comparing it to non-integrated approaches. Results show that early integration of location and routing decisions leads to better location and total costs. We also evaluate the price of robustness and the trade-off between conservative and riskier robust solutions using a Monte Carlo simulation. We perform a series of computational experiments to validate the proposed algorithms using benchmark instances for the deterministic 2E-CLRP, LRP and robust VRP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers & Operations ResearchSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207