★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Engineering and Technology OPEN ACCESS

Forecast-Driven Dispatch for Distributed Service Fleets

Yevhen Piotrovskyi
Senior Software Engineer, Thronelabs Independent Researcher Woodbridge, VA, USA
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajet/Volume08Issue05-11
tajet 2026
VOL. 8 / NO. 05 MAY
FULL TEXT PP. 86-106
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 8
ISSUE 05
YEAR 2026
PAGES 86-106
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

Objective. We present an applied machine-learning framework for scheduling cleaning crews across distributed public-restroom fleets, replacing industry-standard fixed-interval and threshold-triggered rules with a predict-then-optimize pipeline that couple’s usage forecasting, a latent dirtiness state model, and travel-aware preemptive dispatch.

Methods. On a calibrated synthetic city of 50 restroom units across five location types — using a non-homogeneous Poisson usage generator with weather and event bursts and a detour-scaled Euclidean travel matrix — we benchmark five machine-learning contenders (seasonal-naive + greedy, LightGBM quantile forecaster + greedy, Cox proportional-hazards + greedy, Cox PH + OR-Tools mini-VRP, and a rolling-horizon variant) against fixed-interval and per-type usage-threshold baselines, plus a perfect-future-usage oracle. All numbers are produced by a single reproducible script (6 seeds, 2-week train / 4-week evaluation, with 95% confidence intervals and paired -tests).

Results. At the nominal crew budget (220 h/wk, 3 crews), LGBM+Greedy reduced hours above threshold per unit per week from 19.4 (FI-12h) to 1.83 — a 91% reduction (, paired) — using only 79% of the budget. A 3-hour oracle matches LGBM+Greedy within noise, indicating that short-horizon usage prediction is saturated at this fleet scale. Cox proportional-hazards variants under-perform the fixed-interval baseline. A generator–model mismatch stress test (Hawkes-style tails,  drift, spill shocks) preserves the ordering.

Conclusion. A simple usage-forecast-driven greedy dispatcher dominates more sophisticated routing-based alternatives at this fleet scale and provides an engineering baseline for a real-world pilot. A complete reproducible Python implementation accompanies this manuscript as supplementary material.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

predictive dispatch service fleet scheduling LightGBM survival analysis vehicle routing predict-then-optimize

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Agrawal, A., Amos, B., Barratt, S., Boyd, S., Diamond, S., & Kolter, J. Z. (2019). Differentiable convex optimization layers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32.
  2. Alfonso-Lizarazo, E. H., Montoya-Torres, J. R., & Gutiérrez-Franco, E. (2013). Modeling reverse logistics process in the agro-industrial sector: The case of the palm oil supply chain. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(23), 9652–9664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.05.015
  3. Amos, B., & Kolter, J. Z. (2017). OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, 136–145.
  4. Anh Khoa, T., Phuc, C. H., Lam, P. D., Nhu, L. M. B., Trong, N. M., & Phuong, N. T. H. (2020). Waste management system using IoT-based machine learning in university. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2020, Article 6138637. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6138637
  5. Beliën, J., & Demeulemeester, E. (2008). A branch-and-price approach for integrating nurse and surgery scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.060
  6. Carvalho, T. P., Soares, F. A. A. M. N., Vita, R., Francisco, R. da P., Basto, J. P., & Alcalá, S. G. S. (2019). A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 137, Article 106024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106024
  7. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
  8. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34(2), 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x
  9. Dasaklis, T. K., & Pappis, C. P. (2013). Supply chain management in view of climate change: An overview of possible impacts and the road ahead. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(4), 1139–1161. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.883
  10. Davidson-Pilon, C. (2019). lifelines: Survival analysis in Python. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), Article 1317. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01317
  11. Donti, P. L., Amos, B., & Kolter, J. Z. (2017). Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5484–5494.
  12. Dragomir, A. G., & Doerner, K. F. (2024). Waste collection routing: A survey on problems and methods. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 32(2), 399–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-023-00892-y
  13. Elmachtoub, A. N., & Grigas, P. (2022). Smart “predict, then optimize”. Management Science, 68(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3922
  14. Faccio, M., Persona, A., & Zanin, G. (2011). Waste collection multi-objective model with real-time traceability data. Waste Management, 31(12), 2391–2405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.005
  15. Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189–1232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
  16. Gneiting, T., & Raftery, A. E. (2007). Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(477), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437
  17. Hawkes, A. G. (1971). Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, 58(1), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/58.1.83
  18. Jardine, A. K. S., Lin, D., & Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20(7), 1483–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012
  19. Johansson, O. M. (2006). The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management system. Waste Management, 26(8), 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.004
  20. Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (2002). The statistical analysis of failure time data (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032985
  21. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., & Liu, T.-Y. (2017). LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 3146–3154.
  22. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
  23. Lim, B., Arık, S. Ö., Loeff, N., & Pfister, T. (2021). Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 37(4), 1748–1764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.03.012
  24. Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2022a). M5 accuracy competition: Results, findings, and conclusions. International Journal of Forecasting, 38(4), 1346–1364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.11.013
  25. Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2022b). The M5 competition: Background, organization, and implementation. International Journal of Forecasting, 38(4), 1325–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.07.007
  26. Mandi, J., & Guns, T. (2020). Interior point solving for LP-based prediction+optimisation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 7272–7282.
  27. Markov, I., Bierlaire, M., Cordeau, J.-F., Maknoon, Y., & Varone, S. (2020). Waste collection inventory routing with non-stationary stochastic demands. Computers & Operations Research, 113, Article 104798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.104798
  28. Mes, M., Schutten, M., & Pérez Rivera, A. (2014). Inventory routing for dynamic waste collection. Waste Management, 34(9), 1564–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.011
  29. Morais, C. S. de, Ramos, T. R. P., Lopes, M., & Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. (2024). A data-driven optimization approach to plan smart waste collection operations. International Transactions in Operational Research, 31(4), 2178–2208. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13235
  30. Nuortio, T., Kytöjoki, J., Niska, H., & Bräysy, O. (2006). Improved route planning and scheduling of waste collection and transport. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.07.009
  31. Ogata, Y. (1988). Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(401), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478560
  32. Ogata, Y. (1998). Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 50(2), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003403601725
  33. Omi, T., Ueda, N., & Aihara, K. (2019). Fully neural network based model for general temporal point processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2120–2129.
  34. Oreshkin, B. N., Carpov, D., Chapados, N., & Bengio, Y. (2020). N-BEATS: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2020).
  35. Perron, L., & Furnon, V. (2025). OR-Tools (Version 9.x) [Computer software]. Google.
  36. Pillac, V., Gendreau, M., Guéret, C., & Medaglia, A. L. (2013). A review of dynamic vehicle routing problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 225(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.08.015
  37. Psaraftis, H. N., Wen, M., & Kontovas, C. A. (2016). Dynamic vehicle routing problems: Three decades and counting. Networks, 67(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.21628
  38. Ramos, T. R. P., de Morais, C. S., & Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. (2018). The smart waste collection routing problem: Alternative operational management approaches. Expert Systems with Applications, 103, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.001
  39. Salinas, D., Flunkert, V., Gasthaus, J., & Januschowski, T. (2020). DeepAR: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(3), 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.07.001
  40. Serradilla, O., Zugasti, E., Rodriguez, J., & Zurutuza, U. (2022). Deep learning models for predictive maintenance: A survey, comparison, challenges and prospects. Applied Intelligence, 52, 10934–10964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-03004-y
  41. Shchur, O., Türkmen, A. C., Januschowski, T., & Günnemann, S. (2021). Neural temporal point processes: A review. Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2021), 4585–4593. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/623
  42. Si, X.-S., Wang, W., Hu, C.-H., & Zhou, D.-H. (2011). Remaining useful life estimation: A review on the statistical data-driven approaches. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.11.018
  43. Solomon, M. M. (1987). Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problems with time window constraints. Operations Research, 35(2), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.35.2.254
  44. Toth, P., & Vigo, D. (Eds.). (2014). Vehicle routing: Problems, methods, and applications (2nd ed., Vol. 18). MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973594
  45. Vicentini, F., Giusti, A., Rovetta, A., Fan, X., He, Q., Zhu, M., & Liu, B. (2009). Sensorized waste collection container for content estimation and collection optimization. Waste Management, 29(5), 1467–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.10.017
  46. Zhang, W., Yang, D., & Wang, H. (2019). Data-driven methods for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment: A survey. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(3), 2213–2227. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2905565
  47. Zonta, T., da Costa, C. A., da Rosa Righi, R., de Lima, M. J., da Trindade, E. S., & Li, G. P. (2020). Predictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 150, Article 106889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106889
  48. Andrade, L. A. C. G. de, & Cunha, C. B. (2023). Disaggregated retail forecasting: A gradient boosting approach. Applied Soft Computing, 141, Article 110283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110283
  49. Chen, D., Imdahl, C., Lai, D., & Van Woensel, T. (2026). A reinforcement learning approach for the dynamic vehicle routing and scheduling problem with stochastic request times and time-dependent, stochastic travel times. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 182, Article 105387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2025.105387
  50. Ribeiro, R., & Fanzeres, B. (2026). Integrated estimate-and-optimize decision trees learning for two-stage linear decision-making problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 329(2), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.08.048
  51. Soeffker, N., Ulmer, M. W., & Mattfeld, D. C. (2024). Balancing resources for dynamic vehicle routing with stochastic customer requests. OR Spectrum, 46(2), 331–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-024-00747-1
  52. Yang, J., Wang, X., & Luo, Z. (2024). Few-shot remaining useful life prediction based on meta-learning with deep sparse kernel network. Information Sciences, 653, Article 119795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119795
  53. Yu, Q., Cao, Z., Wang, R., Yang, Z., Deng, L., Hu, M., Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2025). Dual-splitting conformal prediction for multi-step time series forecasting. Applied Soft Computing, 184, Article 113825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113825