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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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