← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Learning to Solve Bilevel Programs with Binary Tender

Bo Zhou, Ruiwei Jiang, Siqian Shen

optimizationDeep LearningBilevel ProgramBinary TenderEnhanced SamplingInput Supermodular Neural Network
54.90100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
60.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
39.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We develop a enhanced sampling method and a novel input supermodular neural network to solve bilevel programs with binary tender

Abstract

Bilevel programs (BPs) find a wide range of applications in fields such as energy, transportation, and machine learning. As compared to BPs with continuous (linear/convex) optimization problems in both levels, the BPs with discrete decision variables have received much less attention, largely due to the ensuing computational intractability and the incapability of gradient-based algorithms for handling discrete optimization formulations. In this paper, we develop deep learning techniques to address this challenge. Specifically, we consider a BP with binary tender, wherein the upper and lower levels are linked via binary variables. We train a neural network to approximate the optimal value of the lower-level problem, as a function of the binary tender. Then, we obtain a single-level reformulation of the BP through a mixed-integer representation of the value function. Furthermore, we conduct a comparative analysis between two types of neural networks: general neural networks and the novel input supermodular neural networks, studying their representational capacities. To solve high-dimensional BPs, we introduce an enhanced sampling method to generate higher-quality samples and implement an iterative process to refine solutions. We demonstrate the performance of these approaches through extensive numerical experiments, whose lower-level problems are linear and mixed-integer programs, respectively.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 51% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)