A Lagrangean Heuristic for Hub-and-Spoke System Design with Capacity Selection and Congestion
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
Hub-and-spoke networks are widely applied in a variety of industries such as transportation, postal delivery, and telecommunications. Although they are designed to exploit economies of scale, hub-and-spoke networks are known to favour congestion, jeopardizing the performance of the entire system. This paper looks at incorporating congestion and capacity decisions in the design stage of such networks. The problem is formulated as a nonlinear mixed-integer program (NMIP) that explicitly minimizes congestion, capacity acquisition, and transportation costs. Congestion at hubs is modeled as the ratio of total flow to surplus capacity by viewing the hub-and-spoke system as a network of M/M/1 queues. To solve the NMIP, we propose a Lagrangean heuristic where the problem is decomposed into an easy subproblem and a more difficult nonlinear subproblem. The nonlinear subproblem is first linearized using piecewise functions and then solved to optimality using a cutting plane method. The Lagrangean lower bound is found using subgradient optimization. The solution from the subproblems is used to find a heuristic solution. Computational results indicate the efficiency of the methodology in providing a sharp bound and in generating high-quality feasible solutions in most cases.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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