PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

PREDICTING ACCURATE LAGRANGIAN MULTIPLIERS FOR MIXED INTEGER LINEAR PROGRAMS

Francesco Demelas, Joseph Le Roux, Mathieu Lacroix, Axel Parmentier

optimizationLagrangian RelaxationMixed Integer Linear ProgrammingCombinatorial OptimizationGraph Neural Networks
81.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
84.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
77.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.47)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Lagrangian relaxation stands among the most efficient approaches for solving a Mixed Integer Linear Programs (MILP) with difficult constraints. Given any duals for these constraints, called Lagrangian Multipliers (LMs), it returns a bound on the optimal value of the MILP, and Lagrangian methods seek the LMs giving the best such bound. But these methods generally rely on iterative algorithms resem- bling gradient descent to maximize the concave piecewise linear dual function: the computational burden grows quickly with the number of relaxed constraints. We introduce a deep learning approach that bypasses the descent, effectively amortizing the local, per instance, optimization. A probabilistic encoder based on a graph convolutional network computes high-dimensional representations of relaxed constraints in MILP instances. A decoder then turns these representations into LMs. We train the encoder and decoder jointly by directly optimizing the bound obtained from the predicted multipliers. Numerical experiments show that our approach closes up to 85 % of the gap between the continuous relaxation and the best Lagrangian bound, and provides a high quality warm-start for descent based Lagrangian methods.

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 — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 60% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)