The Gateway Location Problem (GLP) is a new combinatorial optimization problem arising in the framework of rule-based risk mitigation policies for hazmat vehicle routing. GLP consists of locating a fixed number of check points (so called gateways) selected out of a set of candidate sites and routing each vehicle through one assigned gateway in such a way that the sum of the risks of vehicle itineraries is minimized. This paper addresses a GLP preparatory step, that is, how to select candidate sites, and it investigates the impact of different information guided policies for determining such a set. Indeed, previous results pointed out that this stage of the process can impact not only the efficacy of the method, i.e., the risk level associated with the solution itineraries, but also the efficiency of the method with regard to the number of sites to be considered. All policies consist of selecting a ground set and sampling it according to a probability distribution law. A few criteria are proposed for generating ground sets as well as a few probability distribution laws. A deterministic variant based on a cardinality constrained covering model is also proposed for generating candidate site sets. All policies have been tested and compared against plain random generation through extensive testing on a set of realistic instances characterized by three different risk measures. Results confirm that a careful choice of the candidate site set is a critical step of the whole GLP based risk reduction process. A complexity proof of NP-hardness of GLP is also provided.

The Gateway Location Problem: Assessing the impact of candidate site selection policies / M. Bruglieri; P. Cappanera; M. Nonato. - In: DISCRETE APPLIED MATHEMATICS. - ISSN 0166-218X. - STAMPA. - 165:(2014), pp. 96-111. [10.1016/j.dam.2013.06.017]

The Gateway Location Problem: Assessing the impact of candidate site selection policies

CAPPANERA, PAOLA;
2014

Abstract

The Gateway Location Problem (GLP) is a new combinatorial optimization problem arising in the framework of rule-based risk mitigation policies for hazmat vehicle routing. GLP consists of locating a fixed number of check points (so called gateways) selected out of a set of candidate sites and routing each vehicle through one assigned gateway in such a way that the sum of the risks of vehicle itineraries is minimized. This paper addresses a GLP preparatory step, that is, how to select candidate sites, and it investigates the impact of different information guided policies for determining such a set. Indeed, previous results pointed out that this stage of the process can impact not only the efficacy of the method, i.e., the risk level associated with the solution itineraries, but also the efficiency of the method with regard to the number of sites to be considered. All policies consist of selecting a ground set and sampling it according to a probability distribution law. A few criteria are proposed for generating ground sets as well as a few probability distribution laws. A deterministic variant based on a cardinality constrained covering model is also proposed for generating candidate site sets. All policies have been tested and compared against plain random generation through extensive testing on a set of realistic instances characterized by three different risk measures. Results confirm that a careful choice of the candidate site set is a critical step of the whole GLP based risk reduction process. A complexity proof of NP-hardness of GLP is also provided.
2014
165
96
111
M. Bruglieri; P. Cappanera; M. Nonato
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
DAM-GLP.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 691.81 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
691.81 kB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/888399
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact