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