Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although state-of-the-art solvers for Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP) experienced a dramatic performance improvement over the past decades, the resolution of some MIPs is still challenging, requiring hours of computations while, in practice, high-quality solutions are often required to be computed within a very restricted time frame. In such cases, it might be preferable to provide anytime solutions, i.e., a first reasonable solution should be generated as early as possible, then better ones produced in the subsequent computation with the user deciding where to stop. In this respect, the local branching (LB) heuristic [Fischetti and Lodi, 2003] was proposed to improve an incumbent solution either at very early stages of the computation within a general MIP framework or as a stand-alone algorithmic framework. Roughly speaking, given a feasible solution, the method iterates by first defining a solution neighborhood through the so-called local branching cut, then by exploring it by calling a black-box MIP solver. In the local branching algorithm, the choice of the neighborhood size is crucial to performance. In principle, it is desirable to have neighborhoods to be relatively small for efficient computation but still large enough to contain improving solutions. In [Fischetti and Lodi, 2003], the size of the neighborhood is mostly initialized by a fixed constant value, then adjusted at run time. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to believe that there is no a priori single best neighborhood size and the choice of the value should depend on the characteristics of the problem. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, in many applications, instances of the same problem are solved repeatedly. Real-world problems have a rich structure: while more and more data points are collected, patterns and regularities appear. Therefore, problem-specific and task-specific knowledge can be learned from data and applied to adapting the corresponding optimization scenario. This motives a broader paradigm of sizing the solution neighborhoods in local branching. Following the line of work analyzed and surveyed in [Bengio et al., 2021] on the use of Machine Learning (ML) for combinatorial optimization, in this work, we aim to guide the (local) search of the local branching heuristic by ML techniques. In particular, given a problem instance and a time limit for (heuristically) solving it, we exploit ML tools to predict reasonable good values of the neighborhood size, in order to maximize the performance of the local branching algorithm. We computationally show that the neighborhood size can indeed be learnt leading to improved performances and that the overall algorithm generalizes well both with respect to the instance size and, more surprisingly, across instances.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».