Hybrid heuristic for the one-dimensional cutting stock problem with usable leftovers and additional operating constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The One-Dimensional Cutting Stock Problem consists in cutting long bars into smaller ones, to satisfy customers’ demand, minimizing waste and cost. In this paper the standard problem is extended with the inclusion of additional constraints that are generally neglected in scientific literature, although relevant in many industrial applications. We also modified the standard objective function, by assuming that bars may have a different economical value and a different processing or shipping priority. Moreover, in line with business requirements, among solutions that generate the same cutting waste, we prefer the ones that generate a low number of leftovers, especially if leftovers are long, so that the likelihood of their reuse is high. To solve the problem, we propose a Simulated Annealing based heuristic, which exploits a specific neighbor search. The heuristic is implemented in a parametric way that allows the user to set the priorities of the bars and to choose the specific sub-set of constraints he or she wants to consider. The heuristic is finally tested on many problem instances, and it is compared to three benchmarks and to one commercial software. The outcomes of this comparative analysis demonstrate both its quality and effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".