MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094626628 · doi:10.1002/net.20485

Branch‐and‐cut and hybrid local search for the multi‐level capacitated minimum spanning tree problem

2011· article· en· W2094626628 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 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum spanning treeSpanning treeGRASPBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationBranch and cutBranch and boundPolyhedronMathematicsTree (set theory)Computer scienceCutting-plane methodCombinatoricsLinear programmingInteger programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose algorithms to compute tight lower bounds and high quality upper bounds (UBs) for the multilevel capacitated minimum spanning tree problem. We first develop a branch‐and‐cut algorithm, introducing some new features: (i) the exact separation of cuts corresponding to some master equality polyhedra found in the formulation; (ii) the separation of Fenchel cuts, solving LPs considering all the possible solutions restricted to small portions of the graph. We then use that branch‐and‐cut within a GRASP that performs moves by solving to optimality subproblems corresponding to partial solutions. The computational experiments were conducted on 450 benchmark instances from the literature. Numerical results show improved best known (UBs) for almost all instances that could not be solved to optimality. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2012

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)0.001
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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.197 · 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