Improved Peel-and-Bound: Methods for Generating Dual Bounds with Multivalued Decision Diagrams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision diagrams are an increasingly important tool in cutting-edge solvers for discrete optimization. However, the field of decision diagrams is relatively new, and is still incorporating the library of techniques that conventional solvers have had decades to build. We drew inspiration from the warm-start technique used in conventional solvers to address one of the major challenges faced by decision diagram based methods. Decision diagrams become more useful the wider they are allowed to be, but also become more costly to generate, especially with large numbers of variables. In the original version of this paper, we presented a method of peeling off a sub-graph of previously constructed diagrams and using it as the initial diagram for subsequent iterations that we call peel-and-bound. We tested the method on the sequence ordering problem, and our results indicate that our peel-and-bound scheme generates stronger bounds than a branch-and-bound scheme using the same propagators, and at significantly less computational cost. In this extended version of the paper, we also propose new methods for using relaxed decision diagrams to improve the solutions found using restricted decision diagrams, discuss the heuristic decisions involved with the parallelization of peel-and-bound, and discuss how peel-and-bound can be hyper-optimized for sequencing problems. Furthermore, we test the new methods on the sequence ordering problem and the traveling salesman problem with time-windows (TSPTW), and include an updated and generalized implementation of the algorithm capable of handling any discrete optimization problem. The new results show that peel-and-bound outperforms ddo (a decision diagram based branch-and-bound solver) on the TSPTW. We also close 15 open benchmark instances of the TSPTW.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".