Optimization for Roads' Construction: Selection, Prioritization, and Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited resources (budget, labor, machinery) have a significant toll on the roads' construction. The question of interest is: given variations of resources over a lengthy construction time, what would be the best construction scheduling plan, or how to optimize the Gantt chart while considering two highly challenging features (1) prerequisite conditions and (2) the interdependency of the benefit of the projects’ completions. We formulate it as a bilevel problem where the objective function is to minimize generalized costs and the lower level accounts for the drivers’ route choice. We employ a solution algorithm based on a supervised learning technique (a linear regression model of machine-learning) and an integer programming problem and it is applied to the datasets of Winnipeg and Chicago. The regression model was found to be a tight approximation which resulted in an efficient algorithm (the CPU time is almost a linear function of the number of iterations). Moreover, the proposed methodology can render promising results (at least locally optimal solutions). This article is the first to formulate the Gantt chart using linear binary constraints and optimize it tailored to real-life case studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".