Discrete Optimization with Decision Diagrams
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
We propose a general branch-and-bound algorithm for discrete optimization in which binary decision diagrams (BDDs) play the role of the traditional linear programming relaxation. In particular, relaxed BDD representations of the problem provide bounds and guidance for branching, and restricted BDDs supply a primal heuristic. Each problem is given a dynamic programming model that allows one to exploit recursive structure, even though the problem is not solved by dynamic programming. A novel search scheme branches within relaxed BDDs rather than on values of variables. Preliminary testing shows that a rudimentary BDD-based solver is competitive with or superior to a leading commercial integer programming solver for the maximum stable set problem, the maximum cut problem on a graph, and the maximum 2-satisfiability problem. Specific to the maximum cut problem, we tested the BDD-based solver on a classical benchmark set and identified tighter relaxation bounds than have ever been found by any technique, nearly closing the entire optimality gap on four large-scale instances.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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