1

Selective vehicle routing problems under uncertainty without recourse

Mahdieh Allahviranloo1, Joseph Y.J. Chow2, Will W. Recker1

1
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada

Abstract

We argue that the selective vehicle routing problem is more appropriate than the conventional VRP in
handling uncertainty with limited resources. However, previous formulations of selective VRPs have all
been deterministic. Three new formulations are proposed to account for different optimization strategies
under uncertain demand (or utility) level: reliable, robust, and fuzzy selective vehicle routing problems.
Three parallel genetic algorithms (PGA) and a classic genetic algorithm are developed and compared to the
deterministic solution. PGAs differ based on their communication strategies and diversity in sub-
populations. Results show that a PGA, wherein communication between demes, or subpopulations, occurs
in every generation and does not eliminate repeated chromosomes, outperforms other algorithms at the cost
of higher computation time. A faster variation of PGA is used to solve the non-convex reliable selective
VRP, robust selective VRP and the large-scale fuzzy selective VRP, consisting of 200 nodes. Large scale
application demonstrates the value of fuzzy selective vehicle routing problem FSVRP in humanitarian
logistics.

Keywords: selective vehicle routing problem, stochastic optimization, fuzzy optimization, reliability,
robust optimization, parallel genetic algorithm, humanitarian logistics

Accepted for publication in Transportation Research Part E

 2

1 Introduction
The canonical vehicle routing problem (VRP) seeks the optimal route and distribution of vehicles to
different nodes in the network such that vehicles start their trips from the depot and return to the depot after
serving all vertices in the network in a least cost manner. Different variations of vehicle routing problems
have been introduced and applied to benchmark instances or real-world applications. Among these
variations are models designed to deal with uncertain elements that can arise; for example, demand at nodes
or travel time between nodes. In the past two decades, applications of these VRPs under uncertainty have
gained increased interest both from researchers and practitioners due to two key factors: 1) the rise of real
time technologies that improve dynamic routing (Regan et al., 1996; Ghiani et al., 2003), and 2) the need
for humanitarian logistics and emergency response to devastating disasters (Sheu, 2007; Van Hentenryck
et al., 2010; Bozorgi-Amiri et al., 2011; Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2012; Huang et al., 2012).
Given the large body of literature on uncertain routing applications, how appropriate are the assumptions
used to motivate the studies? Optimization under uncertainty encompasses a broad spectrum of theories
that include both stochastic and fuzzy variables (Liu, 2009). There are two general frameworks to handle
uncertainty, depending on the availability of information. In the first category, information are obtained or
updated over time, and optimal policies for sequential decision-making are determined (e.g. Chow and
Regan, 2011a; Powell et al., 2012). Conventional Dantzig-esque two-stage stochastic programming with
recourse can be considered a subcategory of the Bellman-esque dynamic programming methods, one based
on a myopic policy. Most stochastic or fuzzy routing problems deal with this first category with recourse
(e.g. Gan and Recker, 2012).
The second category is where no recourse is possible—where the consequences of the decisions are
much greater. It is assumed that the uncertainties related to nodes cannot be realized within reasonable time,
and hard decisions need to be made without recourse considerations. One primary example of this case is
in large scale disasters, where relief organizations need to race against the clock to provide limited supplies
to a large region where the demand far exceeds the supply. By the time additional information is provided
and can be of use, the number of casualties may have already escalated out of control. As noted in Van
Hentenryck et al. (2010), a standard VRP solution that provides a route through all nodes is not a very
practical solution in humanitarian logistics.
Although there are a growing number of studies dealing with this setting in which there should be no
recourse, the first category of uncertain routing models continues to be used even in those contexts. The
contribution of this paper is to highlight this fallacy, and to show how it can be rectified in the form of new
uncertain vehicle routing problem formulations and solution algorithms for the case when the utility gained
from visiting nodes is uncertain. Applications to simple and large scale networks are devised for
consideration in humanitarian logistics, and to provide benchmarks for future improvements.
The remaining sections of the paper are as follows: Section 2 includes a literature review of uncertain
vehicle routing and strategies to deal with the uncertainty. Section 3 presents a motivational example for
why the selective VRP is better suited to deal with no recourse, and the formulation is formalized from
various special cases proposed in the literature. Additionally, formulations of the selective vehicle routing
problem under uncertainty are proposed for three strategies to resolve uncertainty: reliability maximization,
robust optimization, and maximization of fuzzy importance values. In Section 4, different parallel genetic
algorithms are developed and their accuracies, computation times, and convergence trends are evaluated.
A parallel genetic algorithm is used to solve the non-convex problems and is also adapted to solve large-
scale instances of the fuzzy problem. In Section 5, we benchmark the performances of the three selective
vehicle routing problem formulations on a small test network. In Section 6, we apply our proposed fuzzy
selective vehicle routing problem (FSVRP) to a 200-node network with the parallel genetic algorithm
(PGA) to demonstrate the value of this approach in humanitarian logistics, and Section 7 concludes the
paper.
 3

2 Literature review

2.1 Stochastic VRPs

VRPs with stochastic demand (VRPSD) have been studied for well over thirty years (Stewart and
Golden, 1983). Nonetheless, there have been great debates over how the solution of a selective vehicle
routing problem (SVRP) should be interpreted. Jaillet (1988) presented an analytical approach to solve the
probabilistic traveling salesman problem (PTSP) as an a priori solution for recourse strategies, and
Bertsimas (1988) extended that to VRPSDs. In their framework, the solution generated in the first stage is
an a priori solution that is evaluated in the recourse stage, and the objective is to minimize costs in both
stages. The assumption in their approach is that the solution to the VRPSD is not meant to be interpreted
as a standalone final solution, but to be used as an a priori solution to speed up subsequent reoptimization
in a sequential, dynamic routing context (Bertsimas et al., 1990). Bertsimas (1992) presented two recourse
strategies to further justify the need for an a priori solution: one where demand is only realized when a
node is visited and one where demand is realized at the start of the day and where nodes with zero demand
are omitted from the a priori sequence. Gendreau et al. (1996a) have provided a summary of the literature
up to that point. Much of the more recent literature in this area either deals with solution algorithms (e.g.
Gendreau et al., 1995; Gendreau et al., 1996b; Laporte et al., 2002; Kenyon and Morton, 2003; Bianchi et
al., 2006; Tan et al., 2007; Moghaddam et al., 2012) or with different optimization objectives, as described
below.
Instead of solving for the optimal expected solution, one optimization objective in uncertain
programming is to maximize the reliability that a solution will perform within a specified threshold. One
example is to maximize the travel time reliability, which seeks a solution that maximizes the probability of
the travel time being less than a certain threshold. In the context of humanitarian logistics, certain routes
have a probability of having failed and suppliers need to consider routes that are most reliable. This is
observed in Kenyon and Morton’s (2003) formulation to maximize the probability of completing all vehicle
tours within a given deadline. Reliability maximization is also quite common in other network problems.
For example, Chen et al. (2007) applied a reliability method in a network design problem, where the
problem is comprised of a two-stage optimization problem, with a chance-constrained travel time
minimization problem as an upper-stage problem and user equilibrium network problem as a lower-stage
optimization model. For other examples of reliability objectives in transportation networks, readers are
referred to Daskin and Hesse (1997), Ng and Waller (2009), and Ji et al. (2011).
A second optimization objective is robust optimization. Robust optimization seeks a solution that is
resilient against disruptions or other random events. For example, a robust distribution plan in humanitarian
logistics would be the least sensitive to the probability of routes having failed. Unlike reliability
maximization, robust optimization seeks a risk-averse solution. A robust optimization problem can be
formulated a number of different ways, one of which is to optimize the solution under the worst case
scenario. Ben-Tal and Nemirovski (1998) showed that such problems are tractable, while Sungur et al.
(2008) solved a robust VRP optimizing the worst case scenario. Agra et al. (2012) proposed two
formulations for the robust VRP based on the linear approach. Li et al. (2012) proposed a different linear
robust optimization model that also captured the variance, and applied it to sustainable toll design.
Another solution to robust optimization is a mean-variance formulation that optimizes the expected
value and minimizes the variance of the objective value as defined in Mulvey et al. (1995). Although this
second approach is nonconvex, it provides a flexible multi-objective framework that allows decision-
makers to adapt the degree of robustness of their solution. For example, the mean-variance approach has
been applied to network design problems (Chen et al., 2006; Yin, 2008; Chow and Regan, 2013) so that the
robustness can be managed as a multi-objective problem. The mean-variance approach has generally not
been applied to robust VRPs.

2.2 Fuzzy VRPs

A third uncertain approach has been considered in VRPs: treating variables as fuzzy variables instead
of stochastic variables with known distributions. Fuzzy variables are more suited to scenarios with no
 4

recourse, since those circumstances often do not have known distributions (He and Xu, 2005). They can
capture imperfect information during humanitarian operations (Sheu, 2007; Sheu, 2010). Given its
importance to our treatment of uncertain VRPs without recourse, a brief introduction to fuzzy sets and
variables is provided.

Definition: Fuzzy set

Unlike deterministic sets, where membership of a subject to a set can be represented by binary variables
(0 representing non-membership and 1 representing membership), an instance in a fuzzy sets has a partial
membership value to the sets, (for example, membership of a person to the set of tall people being subject
to non-precise interpretation of “tall”).

 
If X is a set of objects represented by x , the fuzzy set of x is shown as A , and is defined by:


A  x,  A( x) x  X (1)
where:

 A( x) : The degree of membership of x in A . Generally, it is a normalized value in the range of 0 and

A: Fuzzy set

1. (Zimmermann, 1996)

Definition: Fuzzy number

Fuzzy numbers represent convex and normalized fuzzy sets. The value of membership of a fuzzy number
varies in the range of 0 to 1. Triangular, trapezoidal, and bell-shaped curves are the most commonly used
fuzzy numbers in the literature. Triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are normally represented by their
vertices (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and (a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 ) , respectively, as illustrated in Figure1.

μ (a) μ (b)

1 1

a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a4
Figure1. Triangular and trapezoidal representation of fuzzy numbers

Definition 3: α-level set

Αn  -level set of A is a fuzzy set in which the membership value of every member is greater than or

 
equal to α. It is represented by the expression in equation (2).

A  x  X  A( x)   (2)

Thus far, in all applications of fuzzy logic in vehicle routing problems, visiting every location is forced
by the constraint set. The fuzzy concept is used either in computing the remaining capacity of the vehicle
or in scheduling the visits. Teodorović and Pavković (1996) solved a VRP with fuzzy demand. The problem
is to minimize total cost with known locations and vehicle capacity, and approximate demand values.
 5

Teodorović and Radivojevic (2000) used a fuzzy decision-making procedure to make a decision regarding
whether a node with fuzzy demand should be assigned to the route or what the schedule would be for the
nodes in a Dial-a-Ride Problem route. Wang and Wen (2002) applied fuzzy time constraints in a Directed
Chinese Postman Problem. Kuo et al. (2004) used an ant colony algorithm to solve a vehicle routing
problem with both fuzzy travel time and time windows. He and Xu (2005) used a genetic algorithm to solve
a VRP with probabilistic travel time and fuzzy demand. Zheng and Liu (2006) applied credibility measures
of fuzzy values in constraints with the criteria that the credibility measure should be higher than a predefined
value, and used a genetic algorithm to solve the vehicle routing problem. Tang et al. (2009) formulated the
VRP with fuzzy time windows as a multi-objective problem. Gupta et al. (2010) solved a multi-objective
VRP with fuzzy time windows using a genetic algorithm. Cao and Lai (2010) solved a VRP with fuzzy
demand as a chance constrained optimization problem, where the credibility of the demand to be within a
specific range has a threshold value. Xu et al. (2011) proposed a solution for VRP with fuzzy random time
windows.

3 Selective VRPs (SVRPs)

In the following sections, we briefly argue for why SVRPs under uncertainty are more generalized cases
of classical VRPs under uncertainty; then we present the general formulation for the selective vehicle
routing problem.

3.1 Motivating example

The conventional probabilistic TSP (PTSP), as presented by Jaillet (1988), finds an a priori route
through all nodes, where the nodes have random binary demands. Consider the following simplified
example of the PTSP, but assume that no recourse is available, as shown in Figure2.
A
c

0 c

c
B
Figure2. Motivating example network
There are two nodes with equal utility ‘u’ that can be attained by visiting them, three links of equal
length c, and with independent and identically distributed Bernoulli probabilities p (where q = 1 – p) of
occurring. The PTSP is defined in such a way that the only two possible routes (0-A-B-0 and 0-B-A-0) are
equivalent solutions here, and are the only available solutions and strategies. The utility of either route is
‘2u – 3c’ if both nodes generate utility, but the situation can be worse off, as illustrated by the probabilistic
outcomes in Table 1.
Table 1. Probabilities and utilities of each option if all nodes visited
Alternative Utility Probability
1: 2 nodes fail 3c q2
2: 1 node fails u  3c 2 pq
3: 0 nodes fail 2u  3c p2

On the other hand, a selective or profitable VRP is a variant problem that allows a subset of nodes to be
visited. Under these circumstances, the value of having selection in the profitable tour approach can be
 6

clearly distinguished. The solution can be to make no visits, visit one of the nodes (either one due to
symmetry), or visit both nodes (equivalent to the PTSP solution). Obviously this adds flexibility to the set
of solutions, and the value of that can be determined. No visits would be made if the expected values of the
other two options result in negative utility (the travel cost exceeds the expected profit). If only one node is
visited, the utility (with expected utility of up – 2c) is

u  2c, p
1 node  
 2c, q
In terms of maximizing the expected value, assuming 2u  3c (otherwise there would be no value to
visiting the nodes at all), the optimal strategy is to make no visits if p  3c 2u (resulting in expected
utility of 0) and to make two visits otherwise. The single node visit is dominated by the two-node visit
under this criterion of maximizing expected utility. Nonetheless, introducing the option to make no visits
improves upon the value of the strategies, as shown in Figure 3 below. Having the option to select nodes to
construct a subtour introduces greater flexibility simply from a perspective of expected utility, transforming
the PTSP solution (in red) to the dashed green solution in Figure3.
Expected Utility

2u - 3c
p
0 3c/2 1
u
-3c

Figure3. Expected utility of profitable tour approach (dashed green) compared to probabilistic TSP (solid red)
In the situation where there is recourse, such a static solution would have less value since it can be
modified as new data are obtained. We don’t prove that a selective solution would be better than a non-
selective solution in all cases, although future studies can consider this prospect. This example shows that
having selection can add a flexibility premium to the network optimization solution without having to
introduce a timing component, contrary to the redesign premium due to deferral discussed in Chow and
Regan (2011b).
We consider the TSP with the understanding that the conclusions here naturally extend to VRP. The
benefit does not end there, as having more options allows for other objective criteria as well. Maximizing
reliability can be considered for both probabilistic and fuzzy selective problems, while maximizing
robustness can be considered for probabilistic problems.

3.2 Formulation for selective VRPs (SVRPs)

To the authors’ knowledge, all of the studies cited in Section 2.1 and 2.2 require the solution to visit
every node in the network. Most importantly, the a priori solution approach assumes that recourse is
possible. In many cases it is not possible to obtain information for recourse (e.g., large-scale disaster relief
where information is not readily available), and in such cases the a priori solution of visiting every node
would not be effective. One way to overcome this issue is to solve a selective VRP instead. In their selective
traveling salesman problem paper, Laporte et al. (1990) formulated the problem as an integer program with
the objective function of maximizing profit subject to upper-bound costs.
 7

Feillet et al. (2005) provided a review of profitable TSPs where the utility of omitted nodes is minimized
along with travel cost. When either the number of nodes to be visited or amount of total profit from a visited
node is set as a constraint, the problem is called a prize collecting traveling salesman problem. When the
travel cost is constrained and the objective is either to maximize the number of nodes to visit or the total
profit from visited nodes, it is an orienteering problem. Chow and Liu (2012) proposed a generalized
profitable tour problem in the context of traveler activity recommendations, where users would input
desired activity types (e.g. Italian restaurant, a particular movie) into an online portal or mobile device and
the routing engine would find the optimal schedule and destinations, together with fuel constraint
considerations, using such online resources as Yelp. VRPs with selective pickup were also considered by
Gribkovskaia et al. (2008). Valle et al. (2009) formulated a SVRP with an objective of minimizing the
longest route. Chow (2013) proposed a selective extension to Recker’s (1995) Household Activity Pattern
Problem (HAPP), a variant of the pickup and delivery problem for assigning household schedules.
Allahviranloo and Recker (2013) modeled selective activity engagement within a household, using fuzzy
parameters. They employed fuzzy numbers as a tool to represent desirability of activities and solved a
variation of selective pickup and delivery problem. Their study is one of the first formulations of a variant
of the SVRP dealing with uncertainty.
A mathematical programming formulation of the SVRP is provided for clarity. Depending on the utility
gained from visiting nodes and other terms of the objective function, some of the nodes will be served in
the system. Utility can be specified as the demand level at the node, importance of the node in the network,
etc. In this paper, we use the importance of the node as a measure of its utility. The formulation of the SVRP
in this paper is formalized from the earlier work cited above, where prior instances were either profitable
TSPs or such selective variants of VRP as the PDP and HAPP. Specifically, we consider the multi-objective
uncapacitated SVRP problem with time windows:

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv

MaxZ2  U i  Xijv
vV iP jP
(3)
iP vV jP

subject to:

 X v
ij  1 , i  P , (4)

X X
v j

v
ij
v
ji  0, i  P , v V, (5)
j j

X v
0j  1, v V, (6)

X   X0vi  0, v V,
j

i , n 1
v
(7)
i i

i Xiv0  0, vV (8)

Ti  Si  tij  Tj  M  1  Xijv  , i, j  N, v V, (9)

 8

ai  Ti  bi , i  P , (10)

where:
Ui : Perceived utility gained from visiting node.
X v
ij : Binary decision variable takes the value of unity if vehicle v travels from node i

V  1, , v, , V  : Set of vehicles.

to node j , and zero otherwise.

P  1,2, , n
N  0, P , n  1
: Set designating node locations.
: Set of all nodes, including those associated with the initial departure and final

Ti , i  P
return to depot.
: Time at which node i is visited.
tijv , i, j  N, v V : Known travel time between nodes i, j by vehicle v .
cijv , i, j  N, v V : Known travel cost between nodes i, j by vehicle v .
Si , i  P : Duration of service at location i .
ai , i  N : Earliest open time windows for location i .
bi , i  N :
:
Latest open time windows for location i .
Monetary value of time.
M: Large number.

Here, Z1 is the objective of minimizing the total “cost” of travel, comprised of travel cost and travel
time weighted by the monetary value of time (for simplicity of presentation, in the following examples we

Wardman, 1998; Lam and Small, 2001); this is equivalent to assuming a value of  per unit time) and Z2
use the explicit time value rather than the “cost” of time, as represented by the value of travel time (e.g.

is the objective of maximizing utility gained from visiting nodes. Constraints (4) require every node to be
visited by at most one vehicle. Constraints (5) conserve the flow in the network; constraints (6) allow
vehicles to stay in the depot; constraints (7) require all vehicles leaving the depot to be back in the depot at
the end of the service. Constraints (8) prevent a vehicle from returning to the starting origin. Constraints
(9) require the arrival time to every location to be equal or greater than the sum of the arrival time to the
previous location, service time at that location, and travel time between the two locations; these are
effectively the subtour elimination constraints. Constraints (10) represent the time window constraints for
each location. Since the arrival times of nodes that are not selected do not factor into the objective function,
the time window constraints can hold for every node i .
There are at least two examples of problems that benefit from formulation as a SVRP model under
uncertainty. First, when there is a shortage of supply or when the total supply of the fleet cannot meet the
demand level in the network, it may not be feasible to plan a set of routes through every single node—a
large-scale disaster with a limited supply of rescue vehicles is a real-life example of this case. Second, when
there are time limitations and some critical nodes need to be visited before it becomes too late, an a priori
route that selects a subset of nodes to visit can ensure that those nodes are visited in a timely manner.
In this paper, we propose three formulations for different types of SVRP under uncertainty: the fuzzy
SVRP (FSVRP), the reliable SVRP and the robust SVRP, when the utility is stochastic.
 9

3.3 Selective vehicle routing problem under uncertainty without recourse

3.3.1 Fuzzy selective vehicle routing problem with time windows (FSVRPTW)

In FSVRP, there is a corresponding importance value for visiting each node and the objective function
includes minimizing the sum of total travel time and travel cost in the network, and maximizing the utility
gained from importance of visiting every node. In our FSVRP formulations, the objective function in
equation (3) used in the deterministic SVRP is replaced by its fuzzy equivalent, equation (11), with the

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv

same constraint set.

MaxZ2   I i  Xijv
vV iP jP
(11)
iP vV jP

where:

I i : Fuzzy number representing the importance, or utility gained, of visiting node i .

Fuzzy representation of the importance values works well in capturing uncertainty where the values are
vague and unknown to the decision maker. Different approaches have been proposed to solve optimization
problems with fuzzy objective functions, as noted in the literature review in Section 2.2. Zimmermann
(1978) proposed a solution based on maximizing minimum importance value. Tong (1994) solved the
problem by using interval optimization techniques. In this paper the latter method is used for two reasons.
First, it has a linear objective function, which makes it easier to solve. Second, based on different levels of
uncertainty, the method provides a spectrum of solutions to the problem.
Membership

α ILα IUα

IL,j IU,j

Figure4. α-cut representation of a triangular fuzzy number

can cut its fuzzy diagram with any given  , 0    1 . Higher values of cutting level represent higher
If the importance of visiting any given node is a triangular fuzzy number as shown in Figure4, then we

degrees of certainty. A cutting diagram for different values of  will generate  -level sets, and for any
given cut-level the corresponding set will be  I L,i , IU ,i  . Using this range, the formulation with fuzzy

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv

coefficients in the objective function, equation 12, is shown below.

vV iP jP

MaxZ2    I L,i , IU ,i   Xijv

(12)
iP vV jP
subject to:

Constraints 4 to 10.
 10


The lower bound ZL  Z1 , Z2L and upper bound ZU  Z1 , Z2U of problem (12) can be obtained by   

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv
solving the following two linear problems (13a and b):

  X   IU ,i  Xijv
vV iP jP vV iP jP

MaxZ2L I L,i MaxZ2U

v
(a) (b) (13)
iP vV jP iP vV jP
ij

both subject to constraints (4) to (10), described above.

By setting the importance of nodes to the lower/upper bound, the lower/upper bound of the objective
function and the corresponding solution is obtained. The problem is solved as two deterministic

on the  . The resulting values of objective function and solution will vary across the  ZL , ZU  and
optimization problems to define the range of the lower and upper bounds of the fuzzy problem, dependent

 XL , XU  intervals.

3.3.2 Reliable selective vehicle routing problem (RSVRP)

The second model proposed is a reliable selective vehicle routing problem (RSVRP). The model is

plus value of time cost) and maximizing the cumulative utility,  , that can be achieved with a predefined
specified in terms of a multi-objective function of minimizing total travel cost (comprised of actual cost

likelihood of success R, where U X

iP
i
vV jP
v
ij   , as shown in Figure5. For example, if 1 – R = 95%, it is

should result in a higher value of  than a more risk averse 1 – R = 75% which requires utility that can be
interpreted as the selection of nodes to visit such that the utility can be reached R = 5% of the time, which

achieved R = 25% of the time. While the deterministic equivalent approach is based on chance-constrained
literature (e.g. Liu, 2009), this formulation is unique because the problem is specific to node selection.
Probability distribution of comulative utility

R
1-R

Q  U i  Xijv
0 iP vV jP

Figure5. Illustration of utility distribution for Reliable Selective VRP (RSVRP)

The optimum solution to RSVRP is obtained through the following set of equations:

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv

vV iP jP

MaxZ2  
(14)

 
 
subject to:

Pr  U i Xv    1  R , and
 iP vV jP ij
 
(15)
 11

constraints (4) to (10).

Assuming utility of node i is distributed normally with mean of i and variance of  i equation (15)
can be transformed to equation 16. We can rewrite the RSVRP problem in equations (14) and (15) as the
same objectives with equivalent constraint in equation (16).

Min Z1    cijv   tijv Xijv

vV iP jP

MaxZ2  
subject to:

  i  Xij    1  R.   i2  Xijv , and

 v
 1

 
(16)
iP vV jP iP vV jP

constraints (4) to (10).

In equation (16), a location that is selected would contribute its utility to the sum, and any that are not
visited would have a zero mean and variance. This transformation converts the chance constrained problem
to an equivalent deterministic nonlinear programming problem and its solution can be found for a
predetermined value of R , using parallel genetic algorithm (PGA_1), discussed in section 4.

3.3.3 Robust (mean-variance) selective vehicle routing problem (MVSVRP)

We formulate the robust selective vehicle routing problem as a mean-variance problem (MVSVRP)

scenario S is represented by  S and I S denotes the utility gained from visiting node i under that scenario.
under different independent scenarios for utility at each node (Figure6), where the probability of each
i
Probability distribution of utility

I 1i I 2i I Si 1 I S
i

Figure6. Discretizing utility distribution to generate various scenarios

Assuming parameter  as the weight for the mean value of scenarios, the optimization problem is
shown as the following set of equations:

Min Z    S fS  1     S  fS  fS 
2
(17)
S S
 12

fS    cijv   tijv  Xijv   I Si  Xijv , and

subject to:

(18)
vV iP jP iP jP vV
constraints (4) to (10). MVSVRP has a nonlinear and non-convex objective function and similar to
RSVRP, parallel genetic algorithm is developed to find the optimum solution. The details of the algorithm
are explained in Section 4.

4 Parallel Genetic Algorithm

There have been only a few GAs designed for routing problems with the selective property: Tasgetiren
and Smith (2000) for an orienteering problem, Chow and Liu (2012) for the generalized profitable tour
problem, and Chow (2013) for the selective variant of the HAPP model. To further improve on these
algorithms, we consider the use of parallel GAs (PGAs). A PGA searches a feasible region for the optimum
solution by initiating different initial populations in each deme or subpopulation. According to Cantu-Paz
(1998), PGA has a higher efficiency compared to classic GA methods. PGA has been applied to a number
of vehicle routing problems in the literature. Ochi et al. (1998) used a hybrid parallel genetic algorithm to
solve VRP with heterogeneous fleet. They applied petal decomposition to construct chromosomes; in petal
decomposition, routes are in petal structure to form a flower and the best flower is found by sweeping
nodes. Communications between parallel GAs occur when the percentage of replacement of parents with
children is less than 5 percent or when the main modules are capable of finishing. Berger and Barkaoui
(2004) used a hybrid parallel genetic algorithm to solve a VRP with time windows constraints. In their
formulation, two populations with different objective functions are evolved in parallel. The first population
generates solutions by minimizing the travel distance, while the second finds the optimum solution with
minimum violation of time windows. Ho et al. (2008) solved a multi-depot VRP with a hybrid GA. They
demonstrated a hybrid GA where its initial population is generated using the Clarke and Wright savings
method and where the nearest neighbor dominates the case with a random initial population.
In this study, three different PGA structures are tested and compared in terms of their efficiencies in
convergence, computation time, and value of optimum solutions. Table 2 presents the underlying structures
of the GAs developed for the study. As pointed out by Gendreau et al. (1996), such simple algorithms for
deterministic cases as Clarke and Wright savings method do not work well alone for stochastic VRPs
without some substantial modification, so we avoided comparing with those algorithms since it would not
provide much insight.
As shown in Table 2, scenarios are built based on two main criteria: ‘communication strategy’ and
‘elimination’.
 13

Table 2. Genetic Algorithms Structures

Name Multiple demes Communication Eliminate repeated chromosomes

Classic Genetic Algorithm (GA) No n/a No

Parallel Genetic Algorithm1 (PGA_1) Yes Communication occurs at the end, after all Yes, at the end of every iteration
chromosomes converge to their local
optima

Parallel Genetic Algorithm2 (PGA_2) Yes Communication occurs at every iteration Yes, at the end of every iteration
and the best chromosome of each deme is
copied to all other demes, replacing worse
chromosomes.

Parallel Genetic Algorithm3 (PGA_3) Yes Communication occurs at every iteration No

and the best chromosome of each deme is
copied to all other demes, replacing worse
chromosomes.

Two different communication strategies are compared. In Strategy 1, in every deme the initial population
is evolved separately until it converges to local optima, then all populations in every deme are aggregated
to make the final population to implement another GA on top of the aggregated population (PGA_1). This
is a variation of the hybrid PGA discussed in Cantu-Paz (1998). In Strategy 2, at every iteration, the best
chromosome of each deme is copied to all other demes, replacing the worst chromosomes (PGA_2,
PGA_3). In this strategy, communication occurs at every iteration.
The binary nature of the VRP and limiting constraints causes some chromosomes to appear in the
solution set more than once after only 4 or 5 initial iterations of evolution. In order to speed up the
computation, repeated solutions are eliminated from the population at each iteration. The simulation stops
when either the number of iterations exceeds a maximum or the population size becomes less than the
minimum population size defined for the problem. Although the elimination of repeated solutions in PGA_1
and PGA_2 results in populations that are not as diverse as those in PGA_3, the strategy speeds up the
computation.
Every evolution includes a crossover and a mutation step, where the details are as following:

Crossover

o For every chromosome i in population, generate a random number ui , if ui  Pc , add

o Select a random number, Pc .

chromosome i to crossover population Popcr . Length of each chromosome equals to the

Select two chromosomes V1 ,V2  randomly from Popcr and cross them over to generate
number of nodes and each cell takes the value of 1 if the node is visited by any vehicle.
o

Ch1  cV1  1  c) V2

children (Liu, 2009). The crossover equations are as follows, where c is a random number:

Ch2  1  c) V1  cV2

o Check the feasibility of children and calculate the value of objective function for children,
F _ Chld . The solution is infeasible if the visit occurs out of available time windows. The visit

o Generate a random number, r . If r  0.2 and the value of objective function for children are
order is randomly generated.

better than the worst parents in the population, replace parents with children.
Mutation
o Select a random number, Pm .
 14

o For every chromosome i in population, generate a random number u'i , if u'i  Pm , add
chromosome i to mutation population Popm .

d (Liu, 2009). The mutation equation is as follows: Ch  Vi  d

o Select a chromosome for the mutation population and mutate it by generating a random vector

o Check the feasibility of the solution and compute the value of objective function.
o If a mutated child is better than the worst case in the population, replace the worst case with
the child.

4.1 Algorithm comparison for a small network

In this section a comparison between different proposed algorithms, as discussed in Table 2, for a small
network, under the fuzzy selective vehicle routing formulation are presented. The small network consists
of 15 nodes and 2 vehicles. Table 3 illustrates the results obtained from the different algorithms. In this
table, the corresponding error is estimated by comparing their objective functions to the value of the
objective function for the exact solution, which is solved in GAMS22.2 for the small network instance.
GAMS uses the commercial CPLEX solver to find the optimum solution. The value of the objective
function for the exact solution, computed in GAMS, is -56.491.
Table 3. Algorithm performance comparison for small network

Value of objective Average of

Number of Initial Number of CPU Number of
Algorithm function for the optimum values Error
generations population size demes running time cores
best solution for 10 simulation

GA 100 25000 1 -53.30 -53.01 5.6% 03:23:53 1

PGA_1 100 150000 60 -53.85 -52.78 4.7% 00:01:07 12

PGA_2 100 150000 60 -54.23 -53.48 4.0% 00:01:54 12

PGA_3 100 60000 20 -56.44 -56.44 0.1% 00:13:39 12

*Parallel computation is executed using parallel computation toolbox in Matlab 2011b; the standalone executable files use 12 cores to run
the simulation. These file are uploaded to the cluster computers and the CPU time is the cumulative processing time used by all cores.
These times vary depending on the properties of processing cores, task loads on cores, and number of cores. (For PGA_1, the total process
time consumed by all cores to obtain final solution is 67 seconds.)

According to the results shown in Table 3, on average PGA_3 finds the best solution with the minimum
error of 0.1%. However, it has the highest computation time compared to the other parallel algorithms and
the classic genetic algorithm has the highest computation time among all of the algorithms tested. This is
mainly due to two reasons: first, for parallel algorithms, we execute the code on 12 parallel cores. Second,
the elimination strategy applied to PGA_1 and PGA_2 speeds up computation. As an example for the case
of PGA_1, since we are using 12 cores, twelve demes (out of 60 demes) are initiated simultaneously with
a randomly generated population of 7500. In the second generation, before generating the population, the
existence of repeated solutions is checked, and the repeated solutions are eliminated from population. After
some initial generations, population size in every deme decreases and this results in time savings. PGA_3
does not eliminate repeated solutions so its computation time is greater than PGA_1 and PGA_2, but since
it uses 12 cores, it is faster than the classic GA. Even if the GA code is modified to use multiple cores, the
performance of all four algorithms will improve and the computation time difference between algorithms
will lessen, but PGA algorithms will still dominate GA since this piece of code is common among all
algorithms. A comparison of algorithms on 10 randomly generated instances is included in the appendix
under TableA1 along with the properties of input parameters in TableA2. For all 10 instances, PGA_3
finds the best solution with the minimum error.
 15

Figure7 illustrates the convergence trend in the best solution of all algorithms. PGA_1 and PGA_2
converge to the local minimum in early stages, 45th and 10th iteration, respectively. However, the classic
Genetic Algorithm and PGA_3 require more generations to converge (around 60). In these algorithms, it is
the tradeoff between simulation time and accuracy that designates the best algorithm to implement.

Objective function Obtained by GA, Small Network Objective function Obtained by PGA1,Small Network
-44 -44

-46 -46

-48 -48

-50 -50

-52 -52

-54 -54

-56 -56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Iteration Number Iteration Number

Objective function Obtained by PGA2,Small Network Objective function Obtained by PGA3,Small Network
-44 -44

-46 -46

-48 -48

-50 -50

-52 -52

-54 -54

-56 -56

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Iteration Number Iteration Number

Figure7. Comparing Convergence Trend for the Objective Function in Small Network
*Multiple colors for PGA cases represent different demes of PGA, starting with different initial population and converging to a common solution after some iterations

4.2 Algorithm comparison for a large network

A similar comparison is made with a larger network consisting of 200 nodes and 20 vehicles; the results
are shown in Table 4 and Figure8. For the large network, PGA_3 also outperforms the other algorithms at
the cost of a longer computation time.
Table 4. Algorithm performance comparison for large network

Number of Initial population Value of objective

Algorithm Number of demes CPU running time Number of cores
generations size function

GA 50 8000 1 -348.38 32:08:08 1

PGA_1 100 150,000 20 -359.16 02:34:28 12

PGA_2 100 150,000 20 -360.11 04:25:43 12

PGA_3 100 60000 20 -364.878 28:16:56 12

 16

Objective function Obtained by PGA1,Large Network

Objective function Obtained by GA,Large Network -310
-310

-320
-320

-330
-330

-340 -340

-350 -350

-360 -360

-370 -370
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Iteration Number Iteration Number

Objective function Obtained by PGA2,Large Network Objective function Obtained by PGA3,Large Network
-310 -310

-320 -320

-330 -330

-340 -340

-350 -350

-360 -360

-370 -370
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Iteration Number Iteration Number

Figure8. Comparing Convergence Trend for the Objective Function in Large Network
Figure8 illustrates the change in the value of optimum objective function at each iteration. As shown in
the figure, the classic GA fails to search the feasible region properly, similar to the results obtained for the
small network. It evolves over a limited number of generations, and then converges to a solution, which is
dominated by solutions obtained from the parallel cases. Additionally, the computation time for an initial
population of only 8000 is 10 times more than the computation time for populations of 150,000 in PGA_1
and PGA_2 cases, since parallel algorithms operate on 12 cores.
Among all methods, PGA_3 finds the best solution, but its long computation time is a major drawback.
Comparing the value of objective function and computation time for all four algorithms, PGA_1 has the
lowest computation time. Compared to PGA_1, PGA_2 improves objective function by 0.2% with 70%
increase in computation time, and PGA_3 improves solution by 1.6% with 10 times increase in computation
time. Therefore, PGA_1 is employed to solve the reliability and robust examples in Section 5, and the large
network application in Section 6.

5 Evaluation of selective models under uncertainty

We apply the different SVRP models to a small network, consisting of 15 nodes and 2 vehicles. Due to
the limited number of vehicles and time windows constraints, a visit to every node is not feasible, so
conventional VRPs under uncertainty would not work for this test problem at all. Solutions for FSVRP are
found using exact algorithms in GAMS. However, for RSVRP and MVSVRP we solve the nonconvex
optimization problems using the PGA_1 discussed in Section 4. For the sake of brevity, the travel time and
travel cost in the network, fuzzy trapezoidal importance graphs, service duration and time windows for each
 17

node in the network, importance values for RSVRP and parameters of MVSVRP are appended to the paper
as TableA3 to TableA6, FigureA1, and FigureA2.

5.1 Results of FSVRP on small network

Assuming 3 cut points for α-cut method to be 0, 0.5 and 1, the following exact solutions are obtained
using GAMS programming software and shown in Figure9.
Node 4 Node 2 Node 3
Vehicle 2 Depot Node 12 Node 6 Depot

Vehicle 1 Node 9 Node 10 Node 5 Node 13 Node 1 Depot

Node 4
Vehicle 2 Depot Node 8 Node 12 Node 2 Node 6 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 1 Node 10 Node 5 Node 3 Depot

Node 9

Node 7 Node 12 Node 4

Vehicle 2 Node 2 Node 8 Node 13 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 9 Node 1 Node 5 Node 10 Node 3

Vehicle 2 Depot Node 9 Node 10 Node 5 Node 4 Node 1 Depot

Node 7
Vehicle 1 Node 2 Node 6 Node 12 Node 3 Depot

Node 4
Vehicle 2 Depot Node 8 Node 2 Node 12 Node 6 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 1 Node 9 Node 10 Node 5 Node 3 Depot

Node 4
Vehicle 2 Depot Node 8 Node 2 Node 12 Node 6 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 1 Node 9 Node 10 Node 5 Node 3 Depot

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of day (hr)

Figure9. Optimum patterns for visiting nodes at different α-levels

Figure9 illustrates the routing of two vehicles for different values of uncertainty. In this figure, the
horizontal axis indicates time of day and the vertical axis represents different scenarios for the value of
uncertainty (i.e. cut-point) and simplified transitions between chosen nodes in the tour. Relative travel times

time spent at a node. As an example, for the case when   1 at its lower bound, vehicle 1 is dispatched to
between two nodes are indicated by the non-horizontal lines connecting two nodes, and flat lines denote

nodes 1, 9, 10, 5, and 3 at 07:15, 10:45, 13:30, 18:15 and 21:45.

Increasing the value of the cut point from 0 to 1 changes the optimum routes in the lower bounds and
upper bounds toward a single solution. Despite the differences in the visiting order of nodes for different
values of cut-points, some nodes are always visited regardless of the value of cut-points. Table 5 shows the
nodes that are visited together with travel cost, travel time and total utility gained from visiting nodes.
Based on the results provided in Table 5, nodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 are visited in all optimal-route
solutions, whereas nodes 11 and 14 are not part of the optimum route in any solution. That some nodes
appear in the optimum route regardless of the value of uncertainty provides valuable insight and can be a
helpful tool in the decision-making process for cases in which there is a shortage in supply and there is no
time to gather more information for recourse.
 18

Table 5. Summary of fuzzy SVRP on small network

Nodes
Cut-point Cost Travel time Gained Utility
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
α=0, Low level 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1.179 4:00 54.25
α=0, Up level 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1.617 3:58 76.00
α=0.5, Low level 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1.191 3:47 56.87
α=0.5, Up level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - 1.357 5:02 72.25
α=1, Low level 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1.759 4:19 62
α=1, Up level 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1.759 4:19 71.5

5.2 Results of RSVRP on small network

Figure10 illustrates the optimum routes obtained for the reliability methods under a 5 percent and 25
percent confidence level and Table 6 presents the values of different terms of the objective function for the
reliable SVRP. It is assumed that importance values have a normal distribution with the mean and variance
as reported in TableA5 of the appendix.

Vehicle 2 Depot Node 9 Node 13 Node 5 Node 3 Node 10 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 1 Node 4 Node 8 Node 12 Node 2 Depot

Vehicle 2 Node 10 Node 3 Node 5 Node 1 Node 9 Depot

Vehicle 1 Node 4 Node 14 Node 8 Node 12 Node 2 Depot

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of day (hr)
Figure10. Reliable SVRP results on small network

Table 6. Reliable SVRP on small network estimated by PGA_1

Description Visited nodes Cost Travel time(hh:mm) η

RSVRP, 1 – R = 95% 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,12,13 1.07 3:40 71.14
RSVRP, 1 – R =75% 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,12,14 1.16 03:42 66.01

 that can be achieved diminishes from 71.14 to 66.01 as the confidence increases from 5% to 25%. A
Two conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the RSVRP works as intended, as the value of

decision-maker who is more risk averse will have to give up the higher maximum probabilistic utility that
can be achieved. Second, the routes change between these two solutions as well (intermediate value of 1 –
R = 75% did not exhibit any change from 95%), showing the threshold where higher risk aversion leads to
swapping out Node 13 for Node 14 (the less risky choice).

5.3 Results of MVSVRP on small network

in TableA6 in the appendix. Assuming equal probability for each scenario,  S  1 6 , the following results
For the MVSVRP, we created six different scenarios, each with different importance values, as shown

in Figure11 are obtained.

 19

Node 4 Node 12
Vehicle 2 Depot Node 2 Node 5 Node 3 Depot
1
Vehicle 1 Depot Node 9 Node 13 Node 1 Node 14 Node 8 Depot

Vehicle 2 Depot Node 3 Node 5 Node 10 Node 12 Depot

.5
Vehicle 1 Depot Node 13 Node 1 Node 9 Depot

Vehicle 2 Depot Node 2 Node 12 Node 3 Node 5 Depot

Vehicle 1 Depot Node 10 Node 13 Node 1 Depot

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of day (hr)

Table 7 demonstrates the results of MVSVRP for the various values of  . For consistency reasons,
Figure11. Robust MVSVRP results on small network

PGA_1 is employed to find the best solution.

  S fS  1     S  fS  fS 
Table 7. Robust MVSVRP on small network estimated by PGA_1

   f  fS 
2 2
Description Visited nodes S fS * S S
S

Robust SVRP , 
S S S

1 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,12,13,14 -58.27 184.56 -58.27

Robust SVRP ,   0.5 1,3,5,9,10,12,13 -47.04 9.81 -18.61

Robust SVRP ,  0 1,2,3,5,10,12,13 -46.6 9.59 9.59

fS    cijv   tijv  Xijv   I iS  Xijv

*
vV iP jP iP jP vV

variance,  increases from   0 to   1 and as result the mean value improves from -46.60 up to -58.27
The solutions make intuitive sense. As the criterion of minimizing mean at the expense of maximizing

while the variance increases from 9.59 up to 184.56. The visited nodes also change. As the importance of
variance decreases, Node 2 is initially dropped in favor of Node 9, but when none of the weight is allocated
to variance, Node 2 is brought back along with Node 4, Node 8, and Node 14.
In all three formulations of SVRP, there are certain parameters that need to be identified by decision
makers: fuzzy importance graphs and location of cut-point in FSVRP, reliability value in RSVRP, and the
weight of mean and variance in MVSVRP. Because of the different input parameters, it is not appropriate
to compare the three sets of results presented here. Instead, the purpose is to verify the models, benchmark
results for small instances for future replications, and to demonstrate their uses. As all three models indicate,
the “selection” characteristic leads to solutions that not only different in sequence and timing, but also in
nodes visited. This characteristic makes these problems very different from conventional stochastic VRPs.
Table 8 summarizes the general drawback and benefits associated to these models. In terms of finding
an appropriate formulation or optimization strategy to employ, it depends on the nature of the problem. In
Section 6, a fuzzy strategy is evaluated in the context of humanitarian logistics.
 20

Table 8. A comparison of FSVRP,RSVRP, and MVSVRP

Pros
FSVRP Linear objective function, easy to extend.
Does not need too much information regarding the
distribution of the uncertainty.
Can be extended to larger examples and still
provide good solutions in reasonable time.
RSVRP Provides an analytical representation between
multiple random distributions and a desired level
of confidence in solution quality.
MVSVRP Provides a robust solution by incorporating mean
and variance of different scenarios in the objective
function.
Cons
Depending on the values of alpha, solutions vary.
For every level of uncertainty, only 2 bounds are solved.
For a small number of cut-points, analysis is reduced to only solving
two deterministic cases and does not cover the range of possible
values for utility.
Nonlinear terms in the formulation results in high computation costs.
Distribution of uncertainty is required.
Some assumptions are needed to be made for reliability level.
Not easy to extend to larger networks.
Nonlinear terms in the formulation results in high computation costs.
Distribution of uncertainty is required.

Multiobjective function allows for flexibility in Some assumptions are needed to be made for scenario creation.
managing degree of risk aversion. Not easy to extent to larger networks.

6 Application of fuzzy selective vehicle routing problem to humanitarian logistics

According to EM-DAT, in 2011, natural disasters (earthquake, storm, draught, flood, volcano and
wildfire) killed 30,216 people and affected the lives of more than 254 million individuals around the world.
The estimated total damage exceeded 365 billion US dollars. Improving relief operations and dispatching
equipment on-time to affected locations can reduce post-disaster casualties and shorten recovery duration.
Relief logistics networks often require establishing repositories or distribution nodes, called Points of
Distribution (FEMA/USACE, 2008). More importantly, there are different types of logistics networks for
distributing supplies to affected regions, depending on the types of social networks present in the area:
Agency Centric Efforts, Partially Integrated Efforts, and Collaborative Aid Networks (Holguín-Veras et
al., 2012). In other words, the structure of a region’s social knowledge on perceived importance of different
nodes can play a major factor in identifying the type of logistics network to apply.
Due to the shortage in supply resources and uncertainty regarding priority of different nodes of the
network as well their demand level, visiting every node in the network is impossible and may result both
in a waste of supply as well as additional delay in serving the critical nodes of the network. However, based
on the information about the distribution of the importance of different nodes after the disaster, FSVRPs
can be applied to exploit this information (such as the local social networks described by Holguín-Veras et
al., 2012) to identify the optimum network topology for delivering relief supplies.
In this section, we solve the FSVRP for a large network comprising 200 locations, which are randomly
generated over an area of 50x50 square miles, with a fleet size of 20 vehicles for the system. Driving speed
is assumed to be 35 mph, and Euclidean distances between nodes are used. Duration of service is generated
from a normal distribution with the mean of 5.5 hours and variance of 2 for this sample instance, the
minimum and maximum durations are 1.34 and 10.78 respectively. Fuzzy importance values vary in the
range of 0 to 10. The single depot is located at (0,0). For this study we only examine a single depot problem,
but the conclusions drawn from here regarding node stability and certainty-dependent ranges of route
attributes should be extendable to multiple depot variations.
Prior to solving FSVRP, we solve the deterministic case of visiting all nodes with the 20 vehicles,
assuming that there are no time window constraints, to determine the worst-case tour length. The minimum
time to serve all the nodes is found to be 81 hours and 30 minutes. Clearly, if the goal is to serve important
nodes within the first 24 hours after disaster occurs to ensure victims can be aided in a timely manner, a
solution that visits every node is infeasible. Furthermore, such a solution would be useless if no additional
 21

information can be obtained to update the relief effort within that 24-hour period. Given these reasons, we
use the FSVRP to identify the optimum dispatch scenarios.
Triangular fuzzy importance values are assumed for this example, as shown in Figure12. These graphs
are preset importance graphs that decision makers have in mind. As an example, suppose the value of
importance for a given node is ‘4.2’, then decision maker maps ‘4.2’ to the graphs in Figure12 and finds
the graph(s) that ‘4.2’ belongs to, the corresponding corners, which are used for FSVRP, for 4.2 are [2.5,
4,5.5]. If the importance value belongs to more than one set, the corners of fuzzy numbers are updates using
corresponding expected value (Shapiro, 2009).

Membership Value

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

Figure12. Range of fuzzy importance graphs for humanitarian logistic network

In this example we use the PGA_1 algorithm to find the optimal route for its short computation time
and acceptable accuracy. For each cut-point we execute PGA_1 with 250 demes, each deme with a
population size of 1000. The computation time was about 13 hours for 5 scenarios (2.6 hours per scenario),
in i7 processor with quad cores and 2.3GHz of CPU. This time is likely to be shorter if re-coded and
compiled in C++ for implementation in pre-disaster planning or if it runs with more parallel cores. Figure13
shows the results of FSVRP for different values of cut-points. In these sets of figures, blue dots show the
location of the nodes. Comparing upper bounds and lower bounds of each cut-point, more nodes are visited
in the upper bounds than the lower bounds. Figure13(f) demonstrates the priority of the nodes being visited.
The larger circles indicate the set of nodes that are selected for all degrees of uncertainty.
In a relief effort that is integrated with the local social network as suggested by Holguín-Veras et al.
(2012), the degree of importance of different nodes can represent a fuzzy perception of social network hubs.
The solution of the FSVRP provides an informative canvas of which nodes should be targeted as PODs for
distribution—under all degrees of uncertainty, they remain stable solution points. In other words, one
effective way to incorporate local social networks into relief efforts in humanitarian logistics under
uncertainty is to capture the social network hubs using fuzzy variables and to solve an FSVRP to identify
PODs for routing a fleet of vehicles.
+ Unvisited, * Visited, Common in lower & upper bounds 22

+ Unvisited, * Visited, Common in lower & upper bounds

(a) Alpha=0, Lower Bound (b) Alpha=0, Upper Bound
50 50

45 45

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
Y

Y
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
X X

Number of visited nodes: 72, travel time: 59.12, cost: 206.98, Number of visited nodes: 101,travel time: 79.11, cost: 291.22,
Imortance:484.25, number of vehicles: 17 Importance:881.50, number of vehicles: 20
+ Unvisited, * Visited, Common in lower & upper bounds

+ Unvisited, * Visited, Common in lower & upper bounds

(c) Alpha=0.5,Lower Bound (d) Alpha=0.5, Upper Bound
50 50

45 45

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
Y

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
X X

Number of visited nodes: 92, travel time: 69.80, cost: 243.24, Number of visited nodes: 100, travel time: 77.33, cost:
Importance: 607.75, number of vehicles: 19 289.93Importance: 821.25, number of vehicles: 20

(e) Alpha=1 (f) Common nodes in different solutions

50 50

45 45

40 40
+ Unvisited, Visited nodes

35 35

30 30

25
Y

25
Y

20
20

15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0
X 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
X
Common in 5 solutions Common in 4 solutions
Number of visited nodes:94, travel time: 74.04,cost= 266.00 Common in 3 solutions Common in 2 solutions
Importance: 712, number of vehicles: 19 Been visited in 1 solution Not been visited in all solutions

Figure13. Results of fuzzy SVRP in large network

 23

The results in Figure13 provide several insights. As alpha increases from zero to one, the range of
number of vehicles to be deployed changes from 17 – 20 vehicles down to 19 vehicles. The range of number
of nodes that are visited also narrow down in range from 72 – 101 nodes when alpha = 0 to 94 nodes when
alpha = 1. Other similar comparisons can be made with the importance values, travel times, and costs.
As the ranges change with the alpha’s, we can see the choice of nodes to visit also change in some cases,
as we can see from examining the upper bound graphs from alpha = 0 to alpha = 0.5. We identify the nodes
by the number of times they are selected amongst these solutions to identify those that are more stable than
other points. A clear subset of nodes emerge (the ones that occur in all five solutions, shown in red in the
lower right corner of Figure 13) as stable nodes that are included in every route regardless of the degree of
certainty that we have of their importance. In this example, it turns out a large number of these nodes are
present in the southern quadrant of the region, with a lone node in the northern quadrant. These nodes are
likely to play a prominent role if decision-makers are unable to ascertain the degree of certainty in their
information during a time of crisis.

7 Conclusion
In this paper we take a step back from the current trend of applying a recourse assumption to probabilistic
routing problems, even those that should not allow recourse. We show with a simple illustration that a
selective problem under uncertainty with no recourse can offer more value than a conventional TSP. Three
optimization objectives are proposed under this problem variation: maximizing minimum reliability,
maximizing robustness, and maximizing the importance of the solution when the importance of each node
is fuzzy.
In relation to the literature, the contributions of this work are: 1) the argument that certain stochastic
applications of vehicle routing should not allow recourse, and in those cases the VRP solution is inferior to
the more generalized SVRP; 2) developing three new SVRP formulations under uncertainty to address the
lack of stochastic extensions of SVRP until now; 3) proposing three sets of parallel genetic algorithms to
find solutions for large network application of SVRP or for SVRP with nonlinear terms; and 4)
demonstration of the applicability of the proposed method to humanitarian logistics.
These selective routing models offer significant potential for disaster management, particularly the
FSVRP because of the naturally fuzzy nature of many elements in a disaster relief operation. Using the α-
cut method, FSVRP provides a spectrum of optimal solutions based on the degree of uncertainty. Although
there is uncertainty associated with the importance of each node, we demonstrate that there may exist a
subset of nodes which can be informative to decision-makers if it is not empty. In the case of humanitarian
logistics, this insight has a direct application in the local social network integration argued for in the
literature.
Despite the generally larger number of applications in uncertain problems with recourse, there are also
many opportunities for future studies in problems without recourse. The formulations presented in this work
open the way for alternative models (e.g. convex robust optimization). The results for the small network
can be replicated and more efficient algorithms can be designed specifically for this type of problem. Of
immediate interest is the application of FSVRP to an actual disaster region. We speculate that the
combination of different social networks, the type of disaster, and resources available will lend to different
distribution topologies. Although the present study precludes recourse, it would be interesting to compare
dynamic routing strategies based on selective VRP solutions with conventional VRP solutions.

References

Agra, A., Christiansen, M., Figueiredo, R., Hvattum, L.M., Poss, M., Requejo, C., 2012. The robust vehicle
routing problem with time windows. Computers & OR, accepted for publication.
Allahviranloo, M., Recker, W.W., 2013. Modeling Uncertainty in Households’ Activity Engagement
Decisions. In the proceedings of 92nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 13-2876.
 24

Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A., 1998. Robust convex optimization. Mathematics of Operations Research
23(4), 769-805.
Berger, J., Barkaoui, M., 2004. A parallel hybrid genetic algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with time
windows. Computers & Operations Research 31(12), 2037-2053.
Bertsimas, D.J., 1988. Probabilistic Combinatorial Optimization Problems. PhD Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Bertsimas, D.J., Jaillet, P., Odoni, A.R., 1990. A priori optimization. Operations Research 38(6), 1019-
1033.
Bertsimas, D.J., 1992. A vehicle routing problem with stochastic demand. Operations Research 40(3), 574-
585.
Bianchi, L., Birattari, M., Chiarandini, M., Manfrin, M., Mastrolilli, M., Paquete, L., Rossi-Doria, O.,
Schiavinotto, T., 2006. Hybrid metaheuristics for the vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands.
Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Algorithms 5(1), 91-110.
Bozorgi-Amiri, A., Jabalameli, M.S., Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem, S.M.J., 2011. A multi-objective robust
stochastic programming model for disaster relief logistics under uncertainty. OR Spectrum, in press.
Cantú-Paz, E., 1998. A survey of parallel genetic algorithms. Calculateurs Parallèles, Réseaux et Systèmes
Répartis 10(2), 141–171.
Cao, E., Lai, M., 2010. The open vehicle routing problem with fuzzy demands. Expert Systems with
Applications 37(3), 2405-2411.
Chen, A., Subprasom, K., Ji, Z., 2006. A simulation-based multi-objective genetic algorithm (SMOGA)
procedure for BOT network design problem. Optimization Engineering 7(3), 225-247.
Chen, A., Kim, J., Zhou, Z., Chootinan, P., 2007. Alpha Reliable Network Design Problem. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2029, 49-57.
Chen, A., Zhou, Z., 2010. The α-reliable mean-excess traffic equilibrium model with stochastic travel times.
Transportation Research Part B 44(4), 493-513.
Chen, L., Miller-Hooks, E., 2012. Optimal team deployment in urban search and rescue. Transportation
Research Part B 46(8), 984-999.
Chow, J.Y.J., Regan, A.C., 2011a. Network-based real option models. Transportation Research Part B
45(4), 682-695.
Chow, J.Y.J., Regan, A.C., 2011b. Real option pricing of network design investments. Transportation
Science 45(1), 50-63.
Chow, J.Y.J., Liu, H., 2012. Generalized profitable tour problems for online activity routing systems.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2284, 1-9.
Chow, J.Y.J., 2013. Activity-based travel scenario analysis with routing problem reoptimization.
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, in press, doi: 10.1111/mice.12023.
Chow, J.Y.J., Regan, A.C., 2013. A surrogate-based multiobjective metaheuristic and network degradation
simulation model for robust toll pricing. Optimization and Engineering, doi:10.1007/s11081-013-
9227-5.
Daskin, M.S., Hesse, M., 1997. α-reliable p-minimax regret: a new model for strategic facility location
modeling, Location Science 5(4), 227-246.
Feillet, D., Dejax, P., Gendreau, M., 2005. Traveling salesman problems with profits. Transportation
Science 39(2), 188–205.
FEMA/USACE, 2008. IS-26 Guide to Points of Distribution.
Gan, L.P., Recker, W., 2012. Stochastic preplanned household activity pattern problem with uncertain
activity participation (SHAPP). Transportation Science, in press, doi: 10.1287/trsc.1120.0426.
Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., Séguin, R., 1995. An exact algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with
stochastic demands and customers. Transportation Science 29(2), 143-155.
Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., Séguin, R., 1996a. Stochastic vehicle routing. European Journal of Operational
Research 88(1), 3-12.
Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., Séguin, R., 1996b. A tabu search heuristic for the vehicle routing problem with
stochastic demands and customers. Operations Research 44(3), 469-477.
 25

Ghiani, G., Guerriero, F., Laporte, G., Musmanno, R., 2003. Real-time vehicle routing: solution concepts,
algorithms and parallel computing strategies. European Journal of Operational Research 151(1), 1-
11.
Gribkovskaia, I., Laporte, G., Shyshou, A., 2008. The single vehicle routing problem with deliveries and
selective pickups. Computers and Operations Research 35(9), 2908-2924.
He, Y., Xu, J. (2005). A class of random fuzzy programming model and its application to vehicle routing
problem. World Journal of Modelling and Simulation 1(1), 3-11.
Ho, W., Hob, G.T.S., Jib, P., Lau, H.C.W., 2008. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the multi-depot vehicle
routing problem. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 21, 548–557.
Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Wachtendorf, T., 2012. Comparative performance of alternative humanitarian
logistic structures after the Port-au-Prince earthquake: ACEs, PIEs, and CANs. Transportation
Research Part A 46(10), 1623-1640.
Huang, M., Smilowitz, K., Balcik, B., 2012. Models for relief routing: equity, efficiency and efficacy.
Transportation Research Part E 48(1), 2-18.
Jaillet, P., 1988. A priori solution of a traveling salesman problem in which a random subset of the
customers are visited. Operations Research 36(6), 929-936.
Ji, Z., Kim, Y. S., Chen, A., 2011. Multi-objective α-reliable path finding in stochastic networks with
correlated link costs: A simulation-based multi-objective genetic algorithm approach (SMOGA).
Expert Systems with Applications 38(3), 1515-1528.
Kenyon, A.S., Morton, D.P., 2003. Stochastic vehicle routing with random travel times. Transportation
Science 37(1), 69-82.
Kuo, R. J., Chiu, C. Y., Lin, Y. J., 2004. Integration of fuzzy theory and ant algorithm for vehicle routing
problem with time window. IEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information 2.
Lam, T.C., Small, K.A., 2001. The value of time and reliability: measurement from a value pricing
experiment. Transportation Research Part E 37(2-3), 231-251.
Laporte. G., Martello, S., 1990. The selective traveling salesman problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics
26, 193-207.
Laporte, G., Louveaux, F.V., van Hamme, L., 2002. An integer L-shaped algorithm for the capacitated
vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands. Operations Research 50(3), 415-423.
Li, Z.C., Lam, W.H.K., Wong, S.C., Sumalee, A., 2012. Environmentally sustainable toll design for
congested road networks with uncertain demand. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
6(3), 127-155.
Liu, B., 2009. Theory and Practice of Uncertain Programming, UTLAB 3rd edition.
Moghaddam, B.F., Ruiz, R., Sadjadi, S.J., 2012. Vehicle routing problem with uncertain demands: an
advanced particle swarm algorithm. Computers and Industrial Engineering 62(1), 306-317.
Mulvey, J.M., Vanderbei, R.J., Zenio, S.A., 1995. Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Operations
Research 43(2), 264-281.
Ng, M., Waller, S. T., 2009. Reliable System-Optimal Network Design. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2090, 68-74.
Ochi, L.S., Vianna, D.S., Drummond, L.M.A., Victor, O.V., 1998. A Parallel Evolutionary Algorithm for
the Vehicle Routing Problem with Heterogeneous Fleet. Future Generation Computer Systems, 14(5-
6), 285–292.
Powell, W.B., Simao, H.P., Bouzaiene-Ayari, B., 2012. Approximate dynamic programming in
transportation and logistics: a unified framework. EURO Journal of Transportation and Logistics 1(3),
237-284.
Recker, W.W., 1995. The household activity pattern problem: general formulation and solution.
Transportation Research Part B 29(1), 61-77.
Regan, A.C., Mahmassani, H.S., Jaillet, P., 1996. Dynamic decision making for commercial fleet operations
using real time information. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1537, 91-97.
Shapiro.A.F., 2009. Fuzzy Random Variables. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 44(2), 307-314.
 26

Sheng, H., Wang, J., Huang, H., Yen, D. (2006). Fuzzy measure on vehicle routing problem of hospital
materials. Expert Systems with Applications 30(2), 367-377.
Sheu, J.B., 2007. An emergency logistics distribution approach for quick response to urgent relief demand
in disasters. Transportation Research Part E 43(6), 687-709.
Sheu, J.B., 2010. Dynamic relief-demand management for emergency logistics operations under large-scale
disasters. Transportation Research Part E 46(1), 1-17.
Stewart, W.R., Golden, B.L., 1983. Stochastic vehicle routing: a comprehensive approach. European
Journal of Operational Research 14(4), 371-385.
Sungur, I., Ordóñez, F., Dessouky, M., 2008. A robust optimization approach for the capacitated vehicle
routing problem with demand uncertainty. IIE Transactions 40(5), 509-523.
Tan, K.C., Cheong, C.Y., Goh, C.K., 2007. Solving multiobjective vehicle routing problem with stochastic
demand via evolutionary computation. Discrete Optimization 177(2), 813-839.
Tang, J., Pan, Z., Fung, R.Y.K., Lau, H., 2009. Vehicle routing problem with fuzzy time windows. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 160(5), 683-695.
Tasgetiren, M. F., Smith, A.E., 2000. A genetic algorithm for the orienteering problem. In: Proc. of the
Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2,IEEE,910–915.
Teodorović, D., Pavković, G., 1996. The fuzzy set theory approach to the vehicle routing problem when
demand at nodes is uncertain. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 82(3), 307-317.
Teodorovic, D., Radivojevic, G., 2000. A fuzzy logic approach to dynamic Dial-A-Ride problem. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 116(1), 23-33.
Tong, S., 1994. Interval number and fuzzy number linear programmings. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 66(3),
301-306.
Valle. C. A., Salles da Cunha. A., Mateus. G. R., Martinez. L. C., 2009. Exact algorithms for a selective
Vehicle Routing Problem where the longest route is minimized. Electronic Notes in Discrete
Mathematics 35, 133-138.
Van Hentenryck, P., Bent, R., Coffrin, C., 2010. Strategic planning for disaster recovery with stochastic
last mile distribution. Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for
Combinatorial Optimization Problems, LNCS 6140, 318-333.
Wardman, M., 1998. The value of travel time: a review of British evidence. Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy 32(3), 285-316.
Xu, J., Yan, F., Li, S., 2011. Vehicle routing optimization with soft time windows in a fuzzy random
environment. Transportation Research Part E 47(6), 1075-1091.
Yin, Y., 2008. Robust optimal traffic signal timing. Transportation Research Part B 42(10), 911-924.
Zheng, Y., Liu, B., 2006. Fuzzy vehicle routing model with credibility measure and its hybrid intelligent
algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Computation 176(2), 673-683.
Zimmermann, H.J. 1978. Fuzzy Programming and Linear Programming with Several Objective Functions.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1(1), 45-56.
Zimmermann, Hans-Jurgen, 1996. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer Academic,
Massachusetts.
 27

Appendix:

TableA1. Comparing algorithms on 10 randomly generated instances

Instances Number of nodes Exact solution GA PGA_1 PGA_2 PGA_3

1 12 -72.14 -71.96 -71.96 -71.99 -71.99

2 10 -62.109 -61.53 -61.53 -61.53 -61.53

3 15 -85.02 -83.008 -83.126 -84.137 -84.29

4 13 -98.54 -97.30 -96.99 -96.53 -98.17

5 11 -56.15 -56.08 -56.08 -56.04 -56.08

6 11 -72.28 -71.99 -71.99 -71.99 -71.99

7 9 -51.16 -50.31 -50.31 -50.31 -50.31

8 14 -82.732 -80.84 -80.91 -80.65 -81.24

9 8 -53.104 -52.51 -52.51 -52.51 -52.51

10 16 -117.032 -112.07 -109.89 -113.70 -116.41

TableA1 shows the results of solving different instances using GA, PGA_1, PGA_2, and PGA_3 for
FSVRP formulation. In these instances number of nodes are generated from a uniform distribution in the
range of [8,16]. Other parameters such as travel time and cost in network, activity duration, start time and
end time windows are generated randomly as explained in TableA2.
TableA2. Distribution properties of different parameters of instances

Travel time matrix Uniform distribution in the range of [0,1]

Travel cost matrix Travel time plus a random number generated from standard normal distribution. If cost value is negative
they are replaced with random number in the range of [0, 0.15].

Start time windows Normal distribution, mean is 6 AM and variance is 2 hours.

End time windows Normal distribution, mean is 8 PM and variance is 1 hour.

Visit duration Normal distribution with the mean of 1 hour and variance of 2 hours, Negative durations are replaced
with random number in the range of [0, 0.15].

Node importance Normal distribution, mean is 8 hours and variance is 2 hours.

 28

TableA3. Travel time (minutes) and travel cost ($) in hypothetical network
Node 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0 0 16 55 12 42 18 47 56 54 5 6 31 54 18 44
(0.00) (0.09) (0.05) (0.07) (0.23) (0.11) (0.27) (0.08) (0.06) (0.05) (0.06) (0.15) (0.03) (0.09) (0.44)

1 16 0 39 27 34 23 31 40 45 12 17 17 23 8 39
(0.09) (0.00) (0.22) (0.15) (0.18) (0.12) (0.18) (0.22) (0.23) (0.07) (0.09) (0.09) (0.25) (0.05) (0.42)

2 55 39 0 63 33 51 29 5 32 50 53 24 12 37 39
(0.05) (0.22) (0.00) (0.09) (0.18) (0.28) (0.17) (0.03) (0.17) (0.28) (0.29) (0.15) (0.07) (0.21) (0.43)

3 12 27 63 0 44 16 58 65 56 15 11 39 60 26 44
(0.06) (0.14) (0.34) (0.00) (0.24) (0.10) (0.08) (0.38) (0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.23) (0.34) (0.17) (0.49)

4 42 34 33 44 0 27 50 37 13 37 36 22 23 27 6
(0.21) (0.19) (0.17) (0.24) (0.00) (0.16) (0.03) (0.20) (0.07) (0.20) (0.17) (0.13) (0.14) (0.13) (0.03)

5 18 23 51 16 27 0 53 54 40 16 12 28 46 18 28
(0.11) (0.11) (0.26) (0.10) (0.14) (0.00) (0.03) (0.29) (0.22) (0.10) (0.07) (0.16) (0.25) (0.09) (0.32)

6 47 31 29 58 50 53 0 26 55 43 48 29 39 35 11
(0.25) (0.18) (0.17) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.00) (0.16) (0.04) (0.24) (0.31) (0.16) (0.22) (0.20) (0.15)

7 56 40 5 65 37 54 26 0 37 51 54 26 17 39 43
(0.08) (0.21) (0.02) (0.12) (0.20) (0.33) (0.15) (0.00) (0.19) (0.27) (0.06) (0.14) (0.10) (0.20) (0.26)

8 54 45 32 56 13 40 55 37 0 49 49 31 20 38 13
(0.03) (0.27) (0.19) (0.06) (0.06) (0.22) (0.31) (0.22) (0.00) (0.04) (0.06) (0.16) (0.12) (0.20) (0.10)

9 5 12 50 15 37 16 43 51 49 0 5 26 49 13 40
(0.05) (0.08) (0.27) (0.09) (0.20) (0.07) (0.20) (0.28) (0.27) (0.00) (0.02) (0.12) (0.27) (0.08) (0.41)

10 6 17 53 11 36 12 48 54 49 5 0 28 51 16 38
(0.04) (0.09) (0.04) (0.04) (0.19) (0.07) (0.26) (0.05) (0.30) (0.04) (0.00) (0.19) (0.05) (0.09) (0.47)

11 31 17 24 39 22 28 29 26 31 26 28 0 24 13 28
(0.16) (0.08) (0.16) (0.22) (0.12) (0.16) (0.16) (0.14) (0.17) (0.14) (0.15) (0.00) (0.13) (0.09) (0.31)

12 54 41 12 60 23 46 39 17 20 49 51 24 0 36 29
(0.32) (0.22) (0.07) (0.11) (0.15) (0.01) (0.24) (0.10) (0.12) (0.30) (0.05) (0.14) (0.00) (0.19) (0.32)

13 18 8 37 26 27 18 35 39 38 13 16 13 36 0 31
(0.13) (0.02) (0.20) (0.14) (0.15) (0.08) (0.20) (0.22) (0.20) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) (0.20) (0.00) (0.32)

14 44 39 39 44 6 28 56 43 13 40 38 28 29 31 0
(0.25) (0.24) (0.22) (0.25) (0.02) (0.16) (0.32) (0.22) (0.09) (0.25) (0.19) (0.13) (0.16) (0.18) (0.00)
 29

Membership Value

0.5 1.5 2 3 3.5 4.5 5 6 6.5 7.5 8 9 9.5 10

FigureA1. Fuzzy importance graphs

a b c d

FigureA2. Probability distribution of importance

TableA4. Importance value, service duration, open time windows for each node
Node Importance Fuzzy range Start time End time Service duration
0 - - 0:00 0:00 -
1 5 [4.5,5,6,6.5] 7:10 20:40 3:25
2 8 [7.5,8,9,9.5] 7:25 19:50 3:20
3 8 [7.5,8,9,9.5] 7:50 22:50 2:15
4 4 [3,3.5,4.5,5] 6:10 19:40 1:40
5 10 [9,9.5,10,10] 7:20 20:15 3:25
6 5 [4.5,5,6,6.5] 9:45 23:20 3:55
7 2 [1.5,2,3,3.5] 5:30 18:30 2:50
8 4 [3,3.5,4.5,5] 7:25 21:30 2:25
9 4 [3,3.5,4.5,5] 6:45 19:35 2:25
10 8 [7.5,8,9,9.5] 6:10 18:05 4:10
11 0 [0,0,0.25,0.5] 6:10 19:25 3:15
12 8 [7.5,8,9,9.5] 7:30 22:05 3:45
13 3 [1.5,2,3,3.5] 9:20 21:10 2:20
14 3 [1.5,2,3,3.5] 6:10 19:00 3:55
Depot - - 0:00 24:00 -
 30

TableA5. Mean and variance of normally distributed importance values in RSVRP method
Node Mean Variance
0
- -
1
5 6.61
2
8 0.18
3
8 4.19
4
4 5.60
5
10 0.51
6
5 2.83
7
2 4.55
8
4 5.44
9
4 1.17
10
8 1.26
11
0 5.54
12
8 1.45
13
3 6.68
14
3 8.90
Depot
- -

TableA6. Importance value for each node in MVSVRP method

Node Nodes importance values for each scenario

Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6

0 - - - - - -
1
4.5 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.5
2
7.5 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.5
3
7.5 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.5
4
3 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5
5
9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10
6
4.5 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.5
7
1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5
8
3 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5
9
3 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5
10
7.5 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.5
11
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
12
7.5 7.9 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.5
13
1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5
14
1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5
Depot - - - - - -