MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102019950 · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2005.851140

A New Heuristic for Solving the Multichoice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem

2005· article· en· W2102019950 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnapsack problemContinuous knapsack problemHeuristicMathematical optimizationMathematicsChange-making problemRelaxation (psychology)Series (stratigraphy)Function (biology)Cutting stock problemLinear programmingValue (mathematics)Computer scienceApplied mathematicsAlgorithmOptimization problemStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new heuristic for solving the multichoice multidimensional knapsack problem (MMKP) is presented in this paper. The MMKP is first reduced to a multidimensional knapsack problem (MKP). A linear programming relaxation of the resulting MKP is solved, and a series of new values for the variables is computed. These values, pseudo-utility values, and resource value coefficients computed as well, are used in order to obtain a feasible solution for the original MMKP. Finally, the quality of the feasible solution is improved using the pseudo-utility values and the coefficient values of the objective function. Numerical results show that the performance of this approach is superior to that of previous techniques.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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