MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392704563 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2021.0186

A Dual Bounding Framework Through Cost Splitting for Binary Quadratic Optimization

2024· article· en· W4392704563 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahdis Bayani, Borzou Rostami, Yossiri Adulyasak, Louis-Martin Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounding overwatchDual (grammatical number)Mathematical optimizationBinary numberQuadratic equationMathematicsQuadratic programmingComputer scienceArithmeticArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binary quadratic programming (BQP) is a class of combinatorial optimization problems comprising binary variables, quadratic objective functions, and linear/nonlinear constraints. This paper examines a unified framework to reformulate a BQP problem with linear constraints to a new BQP with an exponential number of variables defined on a graph. This framework relies on the concept of stars in the graph to split the quadratic costs into adjacent and nonadjacent components indicating in-star and out-of-star interactions. We exploit the star-based structure of the new reformulation to develop a decomposition-based column generation algorithm. In our computational experiments, we evaluate the performance of our methodology on different applications with different quadratic structures. The quadratic component of the problem is dealt with in the column generation master problem and its subproblem. Results indicate the superiority of the framework over one of the state-of-the-art solvers, GUROBI, when applied to various benchmark reformulations with adjacent-only or sparse quadratic cost matrices. The framework outperforms GUROBI in terms of both dual bound and computational time in almost all instances. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms—Discrete. Funding: The authors thank the Mitacs Accelerate Program for providing funding for this project. In addition, B. Rostami gratefully acknowledges the funding provided by the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) under a Discovery Grant [Grant RGPIN-2020-05395]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2021.0186 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207