Branch‐and‐cut and Branch‐and‐cut‐and‐price algorithms for the adjacent only quadratic minimum spanning tree problem
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quadratic minimum spanning tree problem (QMSTP) consists of finding a spanning tree of a graph G such that a quadratic cost function is minimized. In its adjacent only version (AQMSTP), interaction costs only apply for edges that share an endpoint. Motivated by the weak lower bounds provided by formulations in the literature, we present a new linear integer programming formulation for AQMSTP. In addition to decision variables assigned to the edges, it also makes use of variables assigned to the stars of G . In doing so, the model is naturally linear (integer), without the need of implementing usual linearization steps, and its linear programming relaxation better estimates the interaction costs between edges. We also study a reformulation derived from the new model, obtained by projecting out the decision variables associated with the stars. Two exact solution approaches are presented: a branch‐and‐cut‐and‐price algorithm, based on the first formulation, and a branch‐and‐cut algorithm, based on its projection. Our computational results indicate that the lower bounds introduced here are much stronger than previous bounds in the literature. Being designed for the adjacent only case, our duality gaps are one order of magnitude smaller than the Gilmore–Lawler lower bounds for AQMSTP. As a result, the two exact algorithms introduced here outperform the previous exact solution approaches in the literature. In particular, the branch‐and‐cut method we propose managed to solve AQMSTP instances with as many as 50 vertices to proven optimality. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 65(4), 367–379 2015
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it