MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416118539 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05109

Inverse Mixed Integer Optimization: An Interior Point Perspective

2025· preprint· en· W4416118539 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCutting-plane methodLinear programmingInterior point methodInteger programmingInversePoint (geometry)Inverse problemNorm (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel solution framework for inverse mixed-integer optimization based on analytic center concepts from interior point methods. We characterize the optimality gap of a given solution, provide structural results, and propose models that can efficiently solve large problems. First, we exploit the property that mixed-integer solutions are primarily interior points that can be modeled as weighted analytic centers with unique weights. We then demonstrate that the optimality of a given solution can be measured relative to an identifiable optimal solution to the linear programming relaxation. We quantify the absolute optimality gap and pose the inverse mixed-integer optimization problem as a bi-level program where the upper-level objective minimizes the norm to a given reference cost, while the lower-level objective minimizes the absolute optimality gap to an optimal linear programming solution. We provide two models that address the discrepancies between the upper and lower-level problems, establish links with noisy and data-driven optimization, and conduct extensive numerical testing. We find that the proposed framework successfully identifies high-quality solutions in rapid computational times. Compared to the state-of-the-art trust region cutting plane method, it achieves optimal cost vectors for 95% and 68% of the instances within optimality gaps of e-2 and e-5, respectively, without sacrificing the relative proximity to the nominal cost vector. To ensure the optimality of the given solution, the proposed approach is complemented by a classical cutting plane method. It is shown to solve instances that the trust region cutting plane method could not successfully solve as well as being in very close proximity to the nominal cost vector.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.263 · 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