Improvements and Comparison of Heuristics for Solving the Uncapacitated Multisource Weber Problem
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multisource Weber problem is to locate simultaneously m facilities in the Euclidean plane to minimize the total transportation cost for satisfying the demand of n fixed users, each supplied from its closest facility. Many heuristics have been proposed for this problem, as well as a few exact algorithms. Heuristics are needed to solve quickly large problems and to provide good initial solutions for exact algorithms. We compare various heuristics, i.e., alternative location-allocation (Cooper 1964), projection (Bongartz et al. 1994), Tabu search (Brimberg and Mladenović 1996a), p-Median plus Weber (Hansen et al. 1996), Genetic search and several versions of Variable Neighbourhood search. Based on empirical tests that are reported, it is found that most traditional and some recent heuristics give poor results when the number of facilities to locate is large and that Variable Neighbourhood search gives consistently best results, on average, in moderate computing time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it