MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910453624 · doi:10.4230/lipics.cp.2025.7

Optimizing 2D Cutting: A Bin Packing Approach to Minimize Scraps and Maximize Their Reusability

2025· article· en· W6910453624 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsBin packing problemReusabilityScrapLeverage (statistics)Process (computing)Benchmark (surveying)Linear programmingBin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In industrial settings, cutting predefined pieces from one or multiple sheets of material is a common optimization challenge. This problem can be formulated as a variant of the 2D bin packing problem, where the edges of the pieces define the cut lines. This paper presents a constraint programming model developed in collaboration with an industrial partner in construction to minimize scrap waste generated when cutting insulation pieces. The model introduces an objective function designed to maximize the reusability of leftover material. To fully leverage the model’s efficiency, an initial process transforms irregular insulation pieces into rectangles using one of four processing methods. A comparative analysis is conducted to evaluate the impact of these methods, as well as to benchmark the model’s results against the partner’s manual approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it