MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613081544

New Branch-and-Cut Algorithm for Bilevel Linear Programming

2004· article· en· W2613081544 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

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransposeBranch and boundBranch and cutLinear programmingAlgorithmInteger programmingBilevel optimizationMathematicsMathematical optimizationBranching (polymer chemistry)Set (abstract data type)ExploitCriss-cross algorithmBranch and priceComputer scienceLinear-fractional programmingOptimization problem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear mixed 0---1 integer programming problems may be reformulated as equivalent continuous bilevel linear programming (BLP) problems. We exploit these equivalences to transpose the concept of mixed 0---1 Gomory cuts to BLP. The first phase of our new algorithm generates Gomory-like cuts. The second phase consists of a branch-and-bound procedure to ensure finite termination with a global optimal solution. Different features of the algorithm, in particular, the cut selection and branching criteria are studied in details. We propose also a set of algorithmic tests and procedures to improve the method. Finally, we illustrate the performance through numerical experiments. Our algorithm outperforms pure branch-and-bound when tested on a series of randomly generated problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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