Learning for Spatial Branching: An Algorithm Selection Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of machine learning techniques to improve the performance of branch-and-bound optimization algorithms is a very active area in the context of mixed integer linear problems, but little has been done for nonlinear optimization. To bridge this gap, we develop a learning framework for spatial branching and show its efficacy in the context of the Reformulation-Linearization Technique for polynomial optimization problems. The proposed learning is performed offline, based on instance-specific features and with no computational overhead when solving new instances. Novel graph-based features are introduced, which turn out to play an important role for the learning. Experiments on different benchmark instances from the literature show that the learning-based branching rule significantly outperforms the standard rules. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor/Design & Analysis of Algorithms – Discrete. Funding: This work was supported by Ivey Business School (David G. Burgoyne Faculty Fellowship); FEDER [MTM2014-60191-JIN]; Spanish Ministry of Education [FPU Grant 17/02643, FPU Grant 20/01555]; Conselleria de Cultura, Educacion e Universidade [ED431C 2021/24]; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Discovery Grant 2017-04185]; Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [MTM2017-87197-C3] and Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [PID2021-124030NB-C32].
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".