No Cross-Validation Required: An Analytical Framework for Regularized Mixed-Integer Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter develops a method to obtain the optimal value for the regularization coefficient in a general mixed-integer problem (MIP). This approach eliminates the cross-validation performed in the existing penalty techniques to obtain a proper value for the regularization coefficient. We obtain this goal by proposing an alternating method to solve MIPs. First, via regularization, we convert the MIP into a more mathematically tractable form. Then, we develop an iterative algorithm to update the solution along with the regularization (penalty) coefficient. We show that our update procedure guarantees the convergence of the algorithm. Moreover, assuming the objective function is continuously differentiable, we derive the convergence rate, a lower bound on the value of regularization coefficient, and an upper bound on the number of iterations required for the convergence. We use a radio access technology (RAT) selection problem in a heterogeneous network to benchmark the performance of our method. Simulation results demonstrate near-optimality of the solution and consistency of the convergence behavior with obtained theoretical bounds.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".