MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1165108992 · doi:10.53846/goediss-5126

Randomized Approximation and Online Algorithms for Assignment Problems

2015· dissertation· en· W1165108992 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Bender

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsRandomized roundingGeneralized assignment problemCompetitive analysisOnline algorithmRandomized algorithmMathematicsApproximation algorithmAssignment problemDisjoint setsRoundingMathematical optimizationInteger programmingScheduling (production processes)Separable spaceGeneralizationLinear bottleneck assignment problemWeapon target assignment problemAlgorithmComputer scienceUpper and lower boundsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we consider several combinatorial optimization problems which feature assignment decisions. The first part deals with variants of the generalized assignment problem. We study an extension with additional minimum quantity constraints, and a generalization where the hard capacity constraints are relaxed by adding a convex summand to the objective function. Furthermore, we analyze a version of the separable assignment problem where it is allowed to assign items to multiple bins. For all these problems, we present results on their computational complexity and provide approximation algorithms that use randomized rounding based on configuration integer programming formulations. In the second part, we study an online version of the interval scheduling problem, where an upper bound on the number of failing intervals is known in advance, from the viewpoint of competitive analysis. A similar online setting is given in the Canadian traveler problem, an online variant of the shortest-path problem. For this problem we present a randomized online algorithm and prove that it is best-possible on node-disjoint paths.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207