Combinatorial Benders' Cuts for the Strip Packing Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the strip packing problem, in which a set of two-dimensional rectangular items has to be packed in a rectangular strip of fixed width and infinite height, with the aim of minimizing the height used. The problem is important because it models a large number of real-world applications, including cutting operations where stocks of materials such as paper or wood come in large rolls and have to be cut with minimum waste, scheduling problems in which tasks require a contiguous subset of identical resources, and container loading problems arising in the transportation of items that cannot be stacked one over the other. The strip packing problem has been attacked in the literature with several heuristic and exact algorithms, nevertheless, benchmark instances of small size remain unsolved to proven optimality. In this paper we propose a new exact method that solves a large number of the open benchmark instances within a limited computational effort. Our method is based on a Benders' decomposition, in which in the master we cut items into unit-width slices and pack them contiguously in the strip, and in the slave we attempt to reconstruct the rectangular items by fixing the vertical positions of their unit-width slices. If the slave proves that the reconstruction of the items is not possible, then a cut is added to the master, and the algorithm is reiterated. We show that both the master and the slave are strongly 𝒩𝒫-hard problems and solve them with tailored preprocessing, lower and upper bounding techniques, and exact algorithms. We also propose several new techniques to improve the standard Benders' cuts, using the so-called combinatorial Benders' cuts, and an additional lifting procedure. Extensive computational tests show that the proposed algorithm provides a substantial breakthrough with respect to previously published algorithms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".