A Classifier to Decide on the Linearization of Mixed-Integer Quadratic Problems in CPLEX
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it