You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, we use ceil(area) as a lower bound on the minimum number of bins. It's easy to come up with inputs where ceil(area) is far from optimal (but I don't know how true this is for 'interesting' inputs). We need something better.
These lower-bounds should either be very efficiently computable, or we should have a mechanism where a user can choose to compute them on-demand-only.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have added more lower-bounds. They transform the width and height of items by applying dual-feasible-functions and then ceil(area) of this transformed instance gives us lower-bounds.
Currently, we use
ceil(area)
as a lower bound on the minimum number of bins. It's easy to come up with inputs whereceil(area)
is far from optimal (but I don't know how true this is for 'interesting' inputs). We need something better.These lower-bounds should either be very efficiently computable, or we should have a mechanism where a user can choose to compute them on-demand-only.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: