Complexity of Bilevel Linear Programming with a Single Upper-Level Variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilevel linear programming (LP) is one of the simplest classes of bilevel optimization problems, yet it is known to be NP-hard in general. Specifically, determining whether the optimal objective value of a bilevel LP is at least as good as a given threshold, a standard decision version of the problem, is NP-complete. However, this decision problem becomes tractable when either the number of lower-level variables or the number of lower-level constraints is fixed, which prompts the question: What if restrictions are placed on the upper-level problem? In this paper, we address this gap by showing that the decision version of bilevel LP remains NP-complete even when there is only a single upper-level variable, no upper-level constraints (apart from the constraint enforcing optimality of the lower-level decision) and all variables are bounded between 0 and 1. This result implies that fixing the number of variables or constraints in the upper-level problem alone does not lead to tractability in general. On the positive side, we show that there is a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a local optimal solution of such a rational bilevel LP instance. We also demonstrate that many combinatorial optimization problems, such as the knapsack problem and the traveling salesman problem, can be written as such a bilevel LP instance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".