Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding high-quality solutions to mixed-integer linear programming problems (MILPs) is of great importance for many practical applications. In this respect, the refinement heuristic local branching (LB) has been proposed to produce improving solutions and has been highly influential for the development of local search methods in MILP. The algorithm iteratively explores a sequence of solution neighborhoods defined by the so-called local branching constraint, namely, a linear inequality limiting the distance from a reference solution. For a LB algorithm, the choice of the neighborhood size is critical to performance. Although it was initialized by a conservative value in the original LB scheme, our new observation is that the "best" size is strongly dependent on the particular MILP instance. In this work, we investigate the relation between the size of the search neighborhood and the behavior of the underlying LB algorithm, and we devise a leaning-based framework for guiding the neighborhood search of the LB heuristic. The framework consists of a two-phase strategy. For the first phase, a scaled regression model is trained to predict the size of the LB neighborhood at the first iteration through a regression task. In the second phase, we leverage reinforcement learning and devise a reinforced neighborhood search strategy to dynamically adapt the size at the subsequent iterations. We computationally show that the neighborhood size can indeed be learned, leading to improved performances and that the overall algorithm generalizes well both with respect to the instance size and, remarkably, 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".