MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221014517 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2022.1170

Decision Diagrams for Discrete Optimization: A Survey of Recent Advances

2022· article· en· W4221014517 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

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInfluence diagramInteger programmingDiscrete optimizationConstraint programmingMathematical optimizationKey (lock)Point (geometry)Constraint (computer-aided design)Optimization problemTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsStochastic programmingArtificial intelligenceDecision tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, decision diagrams (DDs) have been the basis for a large array of novel approaches for modeling and solving optimization problems. Many techniques now use DDs as a key tool to achieve state-of-the-art performance within other optimization paradigms, such as integer programming and constraint programming. This paper provides a survey of the use of DDs in discrete optimization, particularly focusing on recent developments. We classify these works into two groups based on the type of diagram (i.e., exact or approximate) and present a thorough description of their use. We discuss the main advantages of DDs, point out major challenges, and provide directions for future work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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