An exact algorithm for constrained k-cardinality unbalanced assignment problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assignment problem (AP) usually deals with how a set of persons/tasks can be assigned to a set of tasks/persons on a one-to-one basis in an optimal manner. It has been observed that balancing among the persons and jobs in several real-world situations is very hard, thus such scenarios can be seen as unbalanced assignment models (UAP) being a lack of workforce. The solution techniques presented in the literature for solving UAP’s depend on the assumption to allocate some of the tasks to fictitious persons; those tasks assigned to dummy persons are ignored at the end. However, some situations in which it is inevitable to assign more tasks to a single person. This paper addresses a practical variant of UAP called k-cardinality unbalanced assignment problem (k-UAP), in which only of persons are asked to perform jobs and all the persons should perform at least one and at most jobs. The k-UAP aims to determine the optimal assignment between persons and jobs. To tackle this problem optimally, an enumerative Lexi-search algorithm (LSA) is proposed. A comparative study is carried out to measure the efficiency of the proposed algorithm. The computational results indicate that the suggested LSA is having the great capability of solving the smaller and moderate instances optimally.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".