The Quadratic Multiknapsack Problem with Conflicts and Balance Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quadratic multiknapsack problem consists of packing a set of items of various weights into knapsacks of limited capacities with profits being associated with pairs of items packed into the same knapsack. This problem has been solved by various heuristics since its inception, and more recently it has also been solved with an exact method. We introduce a generalization of this problem that includes pairwise conflicts as well as balance constraints, among other particularities. We present and compare constraint programming and integer programming approaches for solving this generalized problem. Summary of Contribution: The quadratic multiknapsack problem consists of packing a set of items of various weights into knapsacks of limited capacities -- with profits being associated with pairs of items packed into the same knapsack. This problem has been solved by various heuristics since its inception, and more recently it has also been solved with an exact method. We introduce a generalization of this problem which includes pairwise conflicts as well as balance constraints, among other particularities. We present and compare constraint programming and integer programming approaches for solving this generalized problem. The problem we address is clearly in the core of the operations research applications in which subsets have to be built and, in particular, we add the concept of fairness to the modeling and solution process by computationally evaluating techniques to take fairness into account. This is clearly at the core of computational evaluation of 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".