MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409362862 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i25.34900

Learn2Aggregate: Supervised Generation of Chvatal-Gomory Cuts Using Graph Neural Networks

2025· article· en· W4409362862 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Deza, Elias B. Khalil, Zhenan Fan, Zirui Zhou, Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphMathematicsArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCombinatoricsPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Learn2Aggregate, a machine learning (ML) framework for optimizing the generation of Chvatal-Gomory (CG) cuts in mixed integer linear programming (MILP). The framework trains a graph neural network to classify useful constraints for aggregation in CG cut generation. The ML-driven CG separator selectively focuses on a small set of impactful constraints, improving runtimes without compromising the strength of the generated cuts. Key to our approach is the formulation of a constraint classification task which favours sparse aggregation of constraints, consistent with empirical findings. This, in conjunction with a careful constraint labeling scheme and a hybrid of deep learning and feature engineering, results in enhanced CG cut generation across five diverse MILP benchmarks. On the largest test sets, our method closes roughly twice as much of the integrality gap as the standard CG method while running 40% faster. This performance improvement is due to our method eliminating 75% of the constraints prior to aggregation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207