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 OpenAlexaff
Defeng Liu, Andrea Lodi

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.015

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicArchaeological and Geological StudiesFrench-language works237,207