A nested benders decomposition approach for telecommunication network planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite its ability to result in more effective network plans, the telecommunication network planning problem with signal‐to‐interference ratio constraints gained less attention than the power‐based one because of its complexity. In this article, we provide an exact solution method for this class of problems that combines combinatorial Benders decomposition, classical Benders decomposition, and valid cuts in a nested way. Combinatorial Benders decomposition is first applied, leading to a binary master problem and a mixed integer subproblem. The subproblem is then decomposed using classical Benders decomposition. The algorithm is enhanced using valid cuts that are generated at the classical Benders subproblem and are added to the combinatorial Benders master problem. The valid cuts proved efficient in reducing the number of times the combinatorial Benders master problem is solved and in reducing the overall computational time. More than 120 instances of the W‐CDMA network planning problem ranging from 20 demand points and 10 base stations to 140 demand points and 30 base stations are solved to optimality. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2010
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".