MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095153636 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2013.0568

The Robust (Minmax Regret) Quadratic Assignment Problem with Interval Flows

2013· article· en· W2095153636 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Javad Feizollahi, Igor Averbakh

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRegretMathematical optimizationHeuristicsBenders' decompositionMathematicsGeneralizationTabu searchQuadratic programmingContext (archaeology)MinimaxHeuristicQuadratic equationInterval (graph theory)Computer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a generalization of the classical quadratic assignment problem, where material flows between facilities are uncertain, and only upper and lower bounds are known for each flow. The objective is to find a minmax regret solution. We present an exact Benders decomposition algorithm based on two developed mathematical programming formulations and on the developed linearizations of master problems, and a heuristic based on using tabu search in the context of a Benders decomposition framework. Then, we develop a hybrid Benders decomposition approach that allows us to combine the speed of heuristics with the rigor and precision of the exact Benders method. We discuss the results of extensive computational experiments.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207