Simulation study demonstrates improved route efficiency and risk reduction in disaster relief logistics, highlighting the power of adaptive quantum-inspired AI.
Disaster logistics presents a highly complex decision-making challenge under conditions of uncertainty, where the timely and efficient allocation of scarce resources is essential to minimize human suffering. In this context, we propose a novel Quantum-Inspired Hyperheuristic Framework (QHHF) designed to solve Dynamic Multi-Objective Combinatorial Optimization Problems (DMOCOPs) arising in disaster relief operations. The proposed framework integrates Quantum-Inspired Evolutionary Algorithms (QIEAs), which facilitate diverse and explorative solution generation, with a Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based hyperheuristic capable of dynamically selecting the most suitable low-level heuristic in response to evolving disaster conditions. A dynamic multi-objective mathematical model is formulated to simultaneously minimize total travel cost and risk exposure, while maximizing priority-weighted demand satisfaction. The model captures real-world complexity through time-dependent variables, stochastic demand variations, and fluctuating transportation risks. Extensive simulations using real-world disaster scenarios demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in generating high-quality solutions within stringent response time constraints. Comparative evaluations reveal that QHHF consistently outperforms traditional heuristics and metaheuristics in terms of adaptability, scalability, and solution quality across multiple objective trade-offs. Notably, our method achieves a 9.6% reduction in total travel cost, a 6.5% decrease in cumulative risk exposure, and a 4.7% increase in priority-weighted demand satisfaction when benchmarked against existing techniques. This work contributes both to the advancement of hyperheuristic theory and to the development of practical, AI-enabled decision-support tools for emergency logistics management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Danach et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: