MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154044080 · doi:10.1145/1824777.1824789

Lower-bounded facility location

2010· article· en· W2154044080 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

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFacility location problemBounded functionConstant (computer programming)Upper and lower boundsApproximation algorithmMathematicsFunction (biology)1-center problemMathematical optimizationComputer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the lower-bounded facility location problem which generalizes the classical uncapacitated facility location problem in that it comes with lower bound constraints for the number of clients assigned to a facility in the case that this facility is opened. This problem was introduced independently in the papers by Karger and Minkoff [2000] and by Guha et al. [2000], both of which give bicriteria approximation algorithms for it. These bicriteria algorithms come within a constant factor of the optimal solution cost, but they also violate the lower bound constraints by a constant factor. Our result in this article is the first true approximation algorithm for the lower-bounded facility location problem which respects the lower bound constraints and achieves a constant approximation ratio for the objective function. The main technical idea for the design of the algorithm is a reduction to the capacitated facility location problem, which has known constant-factor approximation algorithms.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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