MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206580908 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i4.20293

Finding Backdoors to Integer Programs: A Monte Carlo Tree Search Framework

2022· article· en· W3206580908 on OpenAlexafffund
Elias B. Khalil, Pashootan Vaezipoor, Bistra Dilkina

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBackdoorComputer scienceInteger programmingBenchmark (surveying)Search treeMonte Carlo methodTheoretical computer scienceTree (set theory)Integer (computer science)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsSearch algorithmCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MIP), a (strong) backdoor is a ``small" subset of an instance's integer variables with the following property: in a branch-and-bound procedure, the instance can be solved to global optimality by branching only on the variables in the backdoor. Constructing datasets of pre-computed backdoors for widely used MIP benchmark sets or particular problem families can enable new questions around novel structural properties of a MIP, or explain why a problem that is hard in theory can be solved efficiently in practice. Existing algorithms for finding backdoors rely on sampling candidate variable subsets in various ways, an approach which has demonstrated the existence of backdoors for some instances from MIPLIB2003 and MIPLIB2010. However, these algorithms fall short of consistently succeeding at the task due to an imbalance between exploration and exploitation. We propose BaMCTS, a Monte Carlo Tree Search framework for finding backdoors to MIPs. Extensive algorithmic engineering, hybridization with traditional MIP concepts, and close integration with the CPLEX solver have enabled our method to outperform baselines on MIPLIB2017 instances, finding backdoors more frequently and more efficiently.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207