A Classifier to Decide on the Linearization of Mixed-Integer Quadratic Problems in CPLEX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite modern solvers being able to tackle mixed-integer quadratic programming problems (MIQPs) for several years, the theoretical and computational implications of the employed resolution techniques are not fully grasped yet. An interesting question concerns the choice of whether to linearize the quadratic part of a convex MIQP: although in theory no approach dominates the other, the decision is typically performed during the preprocessing phase and can thus substantially condition the downstream performance of the solver. In “A Classifier to Decide on the Linearization of Mixed-Integer Quadratic Problems in CPLEX,” Bonami, Lodi, and Zarpellon use machine learning (ML) to cast a prediction on this algorithmic choice. The whole experimental framework aims at integrating optimization knowledge in the learning pipeline and contributes a general methodology for using ML in MIP technology. The workflow is fine-tuned to enable online predictions in the IBM-CPLEX solver ecosystem, and, as a practical result, a classifier deciding on MIQP linearization is successfully deployed in CPLEX 12.10.0.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.012 |
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".