MIP-GNN: A Data-Driven Framework for Guiding Combinatorial Solvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed-integer programming (MIP) technology offers a generic way of formulating and solving combinatorial optimization problems. While generally reliable, state-of-the-art MIP solvers base many crucial decisions on hand-crafted heuristics, largely ignoring common patterns within a given instance distribution of the problem of interest. Here, we propose MIP-GNN, a general framework for enhancing such solvers with data-driven insights. By encoding the variable-constraint interactions of a given mixed-integer linear program (MILP) as a bipartite graph, we leverage state-of-the-art graph neural network architectures to predict variable biases, i.e., component-wise averages of (near) optimal solutions, indicating how likely a variable will be set to 0 or 1 in (near) optimal solutions of binary MILPs. In turn, the predicted biases stemming from a single, once-trained model are used to guide the solver, replacing heuristic components. We integrate MIP-GNN into a state-of-the-art MIP solver, applying it to tasks such as node selection and warm-starting, showing significant improvements compared to the default setting of the solver on two classes of challenging binary MILPs. Our code and appendix are publicly available at https://github.com/lyeskhalil/mipGNN.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".