MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031669620 · doi:10.1002/net.21605

A railroad maintenance problem solved with a cut and column generation matheuristic

2015· article· en· W2031669620 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn generationInteger programmingArc routingComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationRouting (electronic design automation)ScheduleVehicle routing problemHeuristicGraphOperations researchArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we address a real life optimization problem, the rail track inspection scheduling problem. This problem consists of scheduling railway network inspection tasks. The objective is to minimize the total deadhead distance while performing all inspection tasks. Different 0–1 integer formulations for the problem are presented. A heuristic based on both Benders and Dantzig‐Wolfe decompositions is proposed to solve this rich arc routing problem. Its performance is analyzed on a real life dataset provided by the French national railway company. The proposed algorithm is compared to a dynamic programming‐based heuristic. Its ability to schedule the inspection tasks of 1 year on a sparse graph with thousand nodes and arcs is assessed. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 66(1), 40–56 2015

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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