Pooling Problem: Alternate Formulations and Solution Methods
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
The pooling problem, which is fundamental to the petroleum industry, describes a situation in which products possessing different attribute qualities are mixed in a series of pools in such a way that the attribute qualities of the blended products of the end pools must satisfy given requirements. It is well known that the pooling problem can be modeled through bilinear and nonconvex quadratic programming. In this paper, we investigate how best to apply a new branch-and-cut quadratic programming algorithm to solve the pooling problem. To this effect, we consider two standard models: One is based primarily on flow variables, and the other relies on the proportion of flows entering pools. A hybrid of these two models is proposed for general pooling problems. Comparison of the computational properties of flow and proportion models is made on several problem instances taken from the literature. Moreover, a simple alternating procedure and a variable neighborhood search heuristic are developed to solve large instances and compared with the well-known method of successive linear programming. Solution of difficult test problems from the literature is substantially accelerated, and larger ones are solved exactly or approximately.
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