Timing problems and algorithms: Time decisions for sequences of activities
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
Timing problems involve the choice of task execution dates within a predetermined processing sequence, and under various additional constraints or objectives such as time windows, time‐dependent costs, or flexible processing times, among others. Their efficient resolution is critical in branch and bound and neighborhood search methods for vehicle routing, project and machine scheduling, as well as in various applications in network optimization, resource allocation, and statistical inference. Timing‐related problems have been studied for years, yet research on this subject suffers from a lack of consensus, and most knowledge is scattered among operations research and applied mathematics domains. This article introduces a classification of timing problems and features, as well as a unifying multidisciplinary analysis of timing algorithms. In relation to frequent application cases within branching schemes or neighborhood searches, the efficient resolution of series of similar timing subproblems is also analyzed. A dedicated formalism of reoptimization “by concatenation” is introduced to that extent. The knowledge developed through this analysis is valuable for modeling and algorithmic design, for a wide range of combinatorial optimization problems with time characteristics, including rich vehicle routing settings and emerging nonregular scheduling applications, among others. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 65(2), 102–128 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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