Learning in Reformulation-Linearization Technique-Based Spatial Branching: Limitations of Strong Branching Imitation
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
Over the last few years, there has been a surge in the use of learning techniques to improve the performance of optimization algorithms. In particular, the learning of branching rules in mixed integer linear programming has received a lot of attention, with most methodologies based on strong branching imitation. Recently, some advances have been made as well in the context of nonlinear programming, with some methodologies focusing on learning to select the best branching rule among a predefined set of rules, leading to promising results. In this paper, we explore, in the nonlinear setting, the limits on the improvements that might be achieved by the above two approaches when using reformulation-linearization technique-based relaxations for solving polynomial optimization problems: learning to select the best variable (strong branching) and learning to select the best rule (rule selection). History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms–Discrete. Funding: Financial support from Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia [Grants ED431C-2021/24, MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, PID2020-116587GB-I00, and PID2021-124030NB-C32] is gratefully acknowledged. I. Gómez-Casares received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education [FPU Grant 20/01555]. B. Ghaddar received financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Discovery Grants RGPIN-2017-04185 and RGPIN-2025-04585] and the John Thompson Chair Fellowship. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2024.0775 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2024.0775 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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