MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310251946 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2022.1248

Cutting Planes from the Branch-and-Bound Tree: Challenges and Opportunities

2022· article· en· W4310251946 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
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteger programmingBranch and boundCutting-plane methodBranch and cutTree (set theory)Computer scienceSimple (philosophy)Operations researchLinear programmingSearch treeUpper and lower boundsInteger (computer science)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsCombinatoricsProgramming languageEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this short paper, we argue that the standard approach adopted by modern mixed-integer linear programming solvers of using very little cutting plane generation in the branch-and-bound tree can be too conservative and lead to the loss of significant opportunities. Our observation is motivated by some relatively simple computational investigation on a couple of instances in the MIPlib 2010 collection for which the benefit of generating globally valid cuts in the tree is significant. History: This “Challenge” paper was invited by the Editor-in-Chief and based on the topics raised by the author at his plenary address at the 2022 INFORMS Computing Society Conference in Tampa, Florida.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.179 · 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