Tight upper and lower bounds for the quadratic knapsack problem through binary decision diagrams
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
The Quadratic Knapsack Problem (QKP) is a challenging combinatorial optimization problem that has attracted significant attention due to its complexity and practical applications. In recent years, Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) have emerged as a powerful tool in combinatorial optimization, providing efficient bounds. In the literature of the QKP, all the exact methods are based on computing tight bounds before applying branch-and-bound (B&B) schemes. We advance this literature in this work by leveraging BDDs to compute bounds more effectively. We propose a novel integration of dual-bound tightening within a BDD-based B&B framework, employing a Breadth-First Search (BFS) strategy. Our approach addresses the critical limitation of existing BDD-based B&B methods, which often lack robust dual-bound tightening mechanisms. Furthermore, we propose several efficient compilation techniques of BDDs for the QKP. Through extensive experimentation on several categories of QKP instances, we demonstrate that our method competes and often surpasses the bounding stages of the leading exact algorithms. Notably, our approach reduces the average duality gap by up to 10% for the class of Hidden Clique QKP instances, showcasing its potential. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the BFS B&B method outperforms state-of-the-art BDD B&B approaches across all tested QKP instances, highlighting its effectiveness and potential for broader application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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