MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964713924 · doi:10.1007/s10957-010-9668-3

Parametric Integer Programming Algorithm for Bilevel Mixed Integer Programs

2010· article· en· W1964713924 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthias Köppe, Maurice Queyranne, Christopher T. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optimization Theory and Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInteger (computer science)MathematicsInteger programmingInfimum and supremumPolynomialParametric statisticsBilevel optimizationMathematical optimizationTheory of computationLogarithmDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmOptimization problemComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider discrete bilevel optimization problems where the follower solves an integer program with a fixed number of variables. Using recent results in parametric integer programming, we present polynomial time algorithms for pure and mixed integer bilevel problems. For the mixed integer case where the leader’s variables are continuous, our algorithm also detects whether the infimum cost fails to be attained, a difficulty that has been identified but not directly addressed in the literature. In this case, it yields a “better than fully polynomial time” approximation scheme with running time polynomial in the logarithm of the absolute precision. For the pure integer case where the leader’s variables are integer, and hence optimal solutions are guaranteed to exist, we present an algorithm which runs in polynomial time when the total number of variables is fixed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Optimization Theory and ApplicationsSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207