The MIP Workshop 2023 Computational Competition on reoptimization
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the computational challenge developed for a computational competition held in 2023 for the $$20{\text {th}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>20</mml:mn> <mml:mtext>th</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> anniversary of the Mixed Integer Programming Workshop. The topic of this competition was reoptimization, also known as warm starting, of mixed integer linear optimization problems after slight changes to the input data for a common formulation. The challenge was to accelerate the proof of optimality of the modified instances by leveraging the information from the solving processes of previously solved instances, all while creating high-quality primal solutions. Specifically, we discuss the competition’s format, the creation of public and hidden datasets, and the evaluation criteria. Our goal is to establish a methodology for the generation of benchmark instances and an evaluation framework, along with benchmark datasets, to foster future research on reoptimization of mixed integer linear optimization problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 it