Skip to main content

Table 3 A comparison between preprocessed ILP approach (PP ILP) and preprocessed ILP approach with secondary emergency objective (PP ILP E)

From: SURF: identifying and allocating resources during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Test case Processing time Result travel time Matches per emergency
  PP ILP PP ILP E PP ILP PP ILP E PP ILP PP ILP E
1 0.03 0.02 573.01 573.01 ‘e1’: 2 ‘e1’: 2
2 0.01 0.01 361.68 361.68 ‘e1’: 3 ‘e1’: 3
3 0.02 0.02 1222.13 1222.13 ‘e1’: 4 ‘e1’: 4
4 0.02 0.02 1482.39 1482.39 ‘e1’: 5 ‘e1’: 5
5 0.02 0.02 1739.23 1739.23 ‘e1’: 6 ‘e1’: 6
6 0.03 0.03 2112.71 2112.71 ‘e1’: 7 ‘e1’: 7
7 0.05 0.03 1460.81 1460.81 ‘e1’: 8 ‘e1’: 8
8 0.05 0.05 3762.28 3762.28 ‘e1’: 9 ‘e1’: 9
9 0.04 0.03 2128.04 2128.04 ‘e1’: 10 ‘e1’: 10
10 0.05 0.05 2778.93 2778.93 ‘e1’: 10 ‘e1’: 10
11 0.04 0.04 3821.47 3821.47 ‘e1’: 10 ‘e1’: 10
12 0.06 0.07 4180.45 4180.45 ‘e1’: 20 ‘e1’: 20
13 0.12 0.11 9095.84 9095.84 ‘e1’: 30 ‘e1’: 30
14 0.16 0.16 14,195.57 14,195.57 ‘e1’: 40 ‘e1’: 40
15 0.31 0.27 15,062.98 15,062.98 ‘e1’: 50 ‘e1’: 50
16 0.35 0.42 11,795.09 11,923.86 ‘e1’: 28, ‘e2’: 32 ‘e1’: 30, ‘e2’: 30
17 0.45 0.54 13,755.34 13,796.98 ‘e1’: 29, ‘e2’: 41 ‘e1’: 32, ‘e2’: 38
18 0.54 0.71 17,409.57 17,529.67 ‘e2’: 48, ‘e1’: 32 ‘e2’: 45, ‘e1’: 35
19 0.63 0.80 15,936.44 16,034.09 ‘e2’: 50, ‘e1’: 40 ‘e2’: 48, ‘e1’: 42
20 0.78 1.01 17,545.64 17,553.02 ‘e2’: 49, ‘e1’: 51 ‘e2’: 50, ‘e1’: 50
21 1.08 1.26 18,073.04 18,225.54 ‘e3’: 34, ‘e2’: 29, ‘e1’: 47 ‘e3’: 34, ‘e2’: 31, ‘e1’: 45
22 1.20 1.39 17,307.57 17,399.31 ‘e3’: 43, ‘e2’: 35, ‘e1’: 42 ‘e3’: 41, ‘e2’: 39, ‘e1’: 40
23 1.46 1.64 21,938.17 22,138.55 ‘e3’: 37, ‘e2’: 53, ‘e1’: 40 ‘e3’: 38, ‘e2’: 49, ‘e1’: 43
24 1.42 1.66 19,297.70 19,541.02 ‘e2’: 53, ‘e3’: 44, ‘e1’: 43 ‘e2’: 49, ‘e3’: 46, ‘e1’: 45
25 1.68 1.86 22,488.18 22,830.32 ‘e2’: 44, ‘e1’: 58, ‘e3’: 48 ‘e2’: 49, ‘e1’: 53, ‘e3’: 48
26 2.06 2.40 20,339.94 20,810.00 ‘e4’: 44, ‘e3’: 41, ‘e2’: 32, ‘e1’: 43 ‘e2’: 38, ‘e3’: 39, ‘e1’: 42, ‘e4’: 41
27 2.40 3.75 21,888.44 22,425.71 ‘e1’: 39, ‘e2’: 42, ‘e4’: 45, ‘e3’: 44 ‘e1’: 40, ‘e2’: 44, ‘e4’: 44, ‘e3’: 42
28 3.08 4.26 22,012.02 22,478.28 ‘e4’: 41, ‘e2’: 48, ‘e1’: 48, ‘e3’: 43 ‘e4’: 48, ‘e2’: 47, ‘e1’: 45, ‘e3’: 40
29 2.94 3.44 22,690.02 22,920.88 ‘e4’: 42, ‘e1’: 53, ‘e2’: 44, ‘e3’: 51 ‘e4’: 49, ‘e1’: 50, ‘e2’: 46, ‘e3’: 45
30 3.23 3.83 24,983.04 25,384.24 ‘e4’: 49, ‘e2’: 61, ‘e1’: 41, ‘e3’: 49 ‘e4’: 50, ‘e2’: 50, ‘e1’: 48, ‘e3’: 52
31 4.00 4.88 20,898.51 21,377.67 ‘e3’: 36, ‘e4’: 52, ‘e1’: 36, ‘e2’: 41, ‘e5’: 45 ‘e3’: 42, ‘e4’: 42, ‘e1’: 40, ‘e2’: 40, ‘e5’: 46
32 4.74 5.94 22,856.85 23,082.65 ‘e3’: 40, ‘e4’: 46, ‘e5’: 45, ‘e1’: 44, ‘e2’: 45 ‘e3’: 43, ‘e4’: 45, ‘e5’: 45, ‘e1’: 44, ‘e2’: 43
33 4.95 5.81 23,183.70 23,713.83 ‘e2’: 37, ‘e4’: 37, ‘e1’: 52, ‘e3’: 54, ‘e5’: 50 ‘e2’: 41, ‘e4’: 41, ‘e1’: 45, ‘e3’: 53, ‘e5’: 50
34 4.73 6.04 24,452.90 25,142.43 ‘e3’: 38, ‘e5’: 47, ‘e2’: 51, ‘e1’: 47, ‘e4’: 57 ‘e3’: 46, ‘e5’: 48, ‘e2’: 50, ‘e1’: 48, ‘e4’: 48
35 6.04 13.08 26,145.18 26,643.97 ‘e1’: 49, ‘e3’: 51, ‘e2’: 44, ‘e5’: 52, ‘e4’: 54 ‘e4’: 49, ‘e3’: 51, ‘e1’: 49, ‘e2’: 50, ‘e5’: 51
\(36^{{\mathrm{a}}}\) 0.00 0.01 240.00 260.00 ‘e1’: 4 ‘e2’: 2, ‘e1’: 2
  1. The processing time and match total time measured in seconds
  2. \({}^{{\mathrm{a}}}\)A special case to show the greedy matching performed by Hungarian and ILP approaches