MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564296586 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2016.0717

Strengthened Benders Cuts for Stochastic Integer Programs with Continuous Recourse

2016· article· en· W2564296586 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBenders' decompositionMathematical optimizationInteger programmingMathematicsInteger (computer science)Stochastic programmingBranch and cutLinear programming relaxationRelaxation (psychology)Variable (mathematics)Space (punctuation)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With stochastic integer programming as the motivating application, we investigate techniques to use integrality constraints to obtain improved cuts within a Benders decomposition algorithm. We compare the effect of using cuts in two ways: (i) cut-and-project, where integrality constraints are used to derive cuts in the extended variable space, and Benders cuts are then used to project the resulting improved relaxation, and (ii) project-and-cut, where integrality constraints are used to derive cuts directly in the Benders reformulation. For the case of split cuts, we demonstrate that although these approaches yield equivalent relaxations when considering a single split disjunction, cut-and-project yields stronger relaxations in general when using multiple split disjunctions. Computational results illustrate that the difference can be very large, and demonstrate that using split cuts within the cut-and-project framework can significantly improve the performance of Benders decomposition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.281 · 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