MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415588118 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.5c01979

Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with Dynamic Meta Agent for Adaptive Cut Selection in Integer Programming with Applications to Sensor Network Design

2025· article· en· W4415588118 on OpenAlexaff
M Arjun, Fengqi You, Manojkumar Ramteke, Hariprasad Kodamana

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardIndian Institute of Technology DelhiCornell University
KeywordsReinforcement learningInteger programmingSelection (genetic algorithm)ScalabilityCutting-plane methodLinear programmingInteger (computer science)Wireless sensor network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing optimal sensor networks for industrial processes presents significant combinatorial challenges. These are often formulated as large-scale integer programming (IP) problems. Efficiently solving these IPs, particularly through cutting plane selection, remains a critical bottleneck, due to its complexity. Cutting plane selection is a fundamental technique in many IP solvers. It involves iteratively adding valid linear inequalities (cuts) to the problem formulation to eliminate noninteger solutions without removing any feasible integer solutions. This work proposes a hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) framework with dynamic agent allocation to enhance adaptive cutting plane selection for the solution of these problems. Using a two-level architecture powered by the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) backbone, the framework features a meta-agent that selects cutting strategies and allocates lower-level agents to refine LP relaxations. We evaluate the approach on challenging sensor network design problems and synthetic IP instances, comparing it to single-agent RL and traditional heuristics. Results show that HRL achieves higher cumulative rewards, improved success rates, and faster convergence, achieving over 25% and 60% time savings for Gomory and cover cuts, respectively, on these large instances, demonstrating its scalability and effectiveness in optimizing cut selection for real-world applications.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207