The Branch-and-Bound Tree Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the a-posteriori analysis of Branch-and-Bound~(BB) trees to extract structural information about the feasible region of mixed-binary linear programs. We introduce three novel outer approximations of the feasible region, systematically constructed from a BB tree. These are: a tight formulation based on disjunctive programming, a branching-based formulation derived from the tree's branching logic, and a mixing-set formulation derived from the on-off properties inside the tree. We establish an inclusion hierarchy, which ranks the approximations by their theoretical strength \wrt to the original feasible region. The analysis is extended to the generation of valid inequalities, revealing a separation-time hierarchy that mirrors the inclusion hierarchy in reverse. This highlights a trade-off between the tightness of an approximation and the computational cost of generating cuts from it. Motivated by the computational expense of the stronger approximations, we introduce a new family of valid inequalities called star tree inequalities. Although their closure forms the weakest of the proposed approximations, their practical appeal lies in an efficient, polynomial-time combinatorial separation algorithm. A computational study on multi-dimensional knapsack and set-covering problems empirically validates the theoretical findings. Moreover, these experiments confirm that computationally useful valid inequalities can be generated from BB trees obtained by solving optimization problems considered in practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".