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 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
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