MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078190972 · doi:10.1002/net.20451

The preemptive swapping problem on a tree

2011· article· en· W2078190972 on OpenAlexafffund
Shoshana Anily, Michel Gendreau, Gilbert Laporte

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre interuniversitaire de recherche sur les reseaux d'entreprise, la logistique et le transportCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsVertex (graph theory)Object (grammar)Computer scienceTree (set theory)HeuristicMathematical optimizationCombinatoricsMathematicsRouting (electronic design automation)Type (biology)GraphComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article considers the swapping problem on a tree. In this problem at most one object of some type is available at each vertex, and each vertex also requests at most one object of a given type. The total demand and the total supply of each object type are identical. The problem is to determine a minimum cost routing plan starting and ending at a prespecified vertex which is the depot, for a single vehicle of unit capacity and m object types, so that all vertex requests are satisfied. We consider the preemptive mode in which objects may be temporarily dropped along the way. It is shown that this problem is NP‐hard. A heuristic with a worst‐case performance ratio of 1.5 is developed. Finally, it is shown that the case where m = 1 is polynomially solvable. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2011

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetworksSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207