A Numerically Exact Algorithm for the Bin-Packing Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a numerically exact algorithm for solving the Bin-Packing Problem (BPP) based on a branch-price-and-cut framework combined with a pattern-enumeration method. Key to the algorithm is a novel technique for the computation of numerically safe dual bounds for the widely adopted set covering reformulation of the BPP (tightened with additional valid inequalities) with a precision that is higher than the one of general-purpose floating-point solvers. Our branch-price-and-cut algorithm also relies on an exact integer (fixed-point) label setting algorithm for solving the pricing problem associated with the tightened set-covering formulation. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first algorithm for the BPP that is numerically exact and practical for solving large-scale instances. Extensive computational results on instances affected by notorious numerical difficulties (those of the Augmented Non-IRUP class) show that our exact algorithm outperforms all of the not numerically exact state-of-the-art algorithms based on branch-and-cut-and-price techniques that rely on a set-covering formulation of the BPP. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms − Discrete.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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.
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".