MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250014226 · doi:10.5555/2722129.2722164

Linear programming-based approximation algorithms for multi-vehicle minimum latency problems: extended abstract

2015· article· en· W2250014226 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

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundingApproximation algorithmLinear programmingLatency (audio)Leverage (statistics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationVehicle routing problemAlgorithmMathematicsRouting (electronic design automation)Computer networkArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider various multi-vehicle versions of the minimum latency problem. There is a fleet of k vehicles located at one or more depot nodes, and we seek a collection of routes for these vehicles that visit all nodes so as to minimize the total latency incurred, which is the sum of the client waiting times. We obtain an 8.497-approximation for the version where vehicles may be located at multiple depots and a 7.183-approximation for the version where all vehicles are located at the same depot, both of which are the first improvements on this problem in a decade. Perhaps more significantly, our algorithms exploit various LP relaxations for minimum-latency problems. We show how to effectively leverage two classes of LPs---configuration LPs and bidirected LP relaxations---that are often believed to be quite powerful but have only sporadically been effectively leveraged for network-design and vehicle-routing problems. This gives the first concrete evidence of the effectiveness of LP relaxations for this class of problems.The 8.497-approximation the multiple-depot version is obtained by rounding a near-optimal solution to an underlying configuration LP for the problem. The 7.183-approximation can be obtained both via rounding a bidirected LP for the single-depot problem or via more combinatorial means. The latter approach uses a bidirected LP to obtain the following key result that is of independent interest: for any k, we can efficiently compute a rooted tree that is at least as good, with respect to the prize-collecting objective (i.e., edge cost + number of uncovered nodes) as the best collection of k rooted paths. This substantially generalizes a result of Chaudhuri et al. [11] for k = 1, yet our proof is significantly simpler. Our algorithms are versatile and extend easily to handle various extensions involving: (i) weighted sum of latencies, (ii) constraints specifying which depots may serve which nodes, (iii) node service times.Finally, we propose a configuration LP that sheds further light on the power of LP relaxations for minimum-latency problems. We prove that the integrality gap of this LP is at most 3.592, even for the multi-depot problem, both via an efficient rounding procedure, and by showing that it is at least as powerful as a stroll-based lower bound that is oft-used for minimum-latency problems; the latter result implies an integrality gap of at most 3.03 when k = 1. Although, we do not know how to solve this LP in general, it can be solved (near-optimally) when k = 1, and this yields an LP-relative 3.592-approximation for the single-vehicle problem, matching (essentially) the current-best approximation ratio for this problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.259 · 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