MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114775904 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2025.11.003

Route optimization for open-close multiple travelling salesman problem with load-balancing constraint: A multi-chromosome based genetic algorithm

2025· article· en· W7114775904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemCrossover2-optGenetic algorithmBenchmark (surveying)Bottleneck traveling salesman problemCombinatorial optimizationNearest neighbour algorithmLin–Kernighan heuristic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Multiple Travelling Salesman Problem (MTSP) is one of the prominent combinatorial optimization problems with both theoretical interest and practical applications. However, its less-explored variants, such as the Open-Close Multiple Travelling Salesman Problem (OCMTSP), have received comparatively limited attention. In the OCMTSP, all salesmen commence their routes from a central depot, but unlike the classical MTSP, not all are required to return to the starting point upon completing their deliveries. Additionally, allowing any salesman to visit the maximum number of cities can lead to an imbalanced workload distribution among the salesmen. To address this imbalance, the current study incorporates a load balancing constraint into the OCMTSP framework, ensuring a fair distribution of cities among all salesmen. This extended problem variant is termed as Open-Close Multiple Travelling Salesman Problem with Load Balancing (OCMTSPLB). The primary objective of the OCMTSPLB is to minimize the total travel distance or cost incurred by the combined open and closed tours while maintaining balanced workloads. To solve this variant, the study proposes two distinct crossover based multi-chromosome Genetic Algorithm (GA) frameworks. Given the novelty of this problem, the algorithms are assessed using standardized benchmark instances from the TSPLIB. Experimental findings indicate that one of the proposed GA variants consistently achieves superior solution quality, a result further validated through non-parametric statistical tests.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207