Provably near-optimal solutions for very large single-row facility layout problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The facility layout problem is a global optimization problem that seeks to arrange a given number of rectangular facilities so as to minimize the total cost associated with the (known or projected) interactions between them. This paper is concerned with the single-row facility layout problem (SRFLP), the one-dimensional version of facility layout that is also known as the one-dimensional space allocation problem. It was recently shown that the combination of a semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation with cutting planes is able to compute globally optimal layouts for SRFLPs with up to 30 facilities. This paper further explores the application of SDP to this problem. First, we revisit the recently proposed quadratic formulation of this problem that underlies the SDP relaxation and provide an independent proof that the feasible set of the formulation is a precise representation of the set of all permutations on n objects. This fact follows from earlier work of Murata et al., but a proof in terms of the variables and structure of the SDP construction provides interesting insights into our approach. Second, we propose a new matrix-based formulation that yields a new SDP relaxation with fewer linear constraints but still yielding high-quality global lower bounds. Using this new relaxation, we are able to compute nearly optimal solutions for instances with up to 100 facilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".