MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210396263 · doi:10.4230/lipics.cp.2021.3

Learning in Local Branching (Invited Talk)

2021· article· en· W3210396263 on OpenAlex
Defeng Liu, Andrea Lodi

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

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Geological Studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBranching (polymer chemistry)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although state-of-the-art solvers for Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP) experienced a dramatic performance improvement over the past decades, the resolution of some MIPs is still challenging, requiring hours of computations while, in practice, high-quality solutions are often required to be computed within a very restricted time frame. In such cases, it might be preferable to provide anytime solutions, i.e., a first reasonable solution should be generated as early as possible, then better ones produced in the subsequent computation with the user deciding where to stop. In this respect, the local branching (LB) heuristic [Fischetti and Lodi, 2003] was proposed to improve an incumbent solution either at very early stages of the computation within a general MIP framework or as a stand-alone algorithmic framework. Roughly speaking, given a feasible solution, the method iterates by first defining a solution neighborhood through the so-called local branching cut, then by exploring it by calling a black-box MIP solver. In the local branching algorithm, the choice of the neighborhood size is crucial to performance. In principle, it is desirable to have neighborhoods to be relatively small for efficient computation but still large enough to contain improving solutions. In [Fischetti and Lodi, 2003], the size of the neighborhood is mostly initialized by a fixed constant value, then adjusted at run time. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to believe that there is no a priori single best neighborhood size and the choice of the value should depend on the characteristics of the problem. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, in many applications, instances of the same problem are solved repeatedly. Real-world problems have a rich structure: while more and more data points are collected, patterns and regularities appear. Therefore, problem-specific and task-specific knowledge can be learned from data and applied to adapting the corresponding optimization scenario. This motives a broader paradigm of sizing the solution neighborhoods in local branching. Following the line of work analyzed and surveyed in [Bengio et al., 2021] on the use of Machine Learning (ML) for combinatorial optimization, in this work, we aim to guide the (local) search of the local branching heuristic by ML techniques. In particular, given a problem instance and a time limit for (heuristically) solving it, we exploit ML tools to predict reasonable good values of the neighborhood size, in order to maximize the performance of the local branching algorithm. We computationally show that the neighborhood size can indeed be learnt leading to improved performances and that the overall algorithm generalizes well both with respect to the instance size and, more surprisingly, across 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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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