Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Giulia Zarpellon

dblp:220/7796 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-9122-4709ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 94% Automated reasoning and model checking · 6%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Optimization for machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization › discrete optimization
mixed integer linear programming
1.122022
Learning to Cut by Looking Ahead: Cutting Plane Selection via Imitation Learning · ICML 2022
Parameterizing Branch-and-Bound Search Trees to Learn Branching Policies · AAAI 2021
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
learned optimizer
0.612022
Learning to Cut by Looking Ahead: Cutting Plane Selection via Imitation Learning · ICML 2022
Mathematical optimization › integer programming › cutting planes
cutting plane selection
0.612022
Learning to Cut by Looking Ahead: Cutting Plane Selection via Imitation Learning · ICML 2022
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
branch-and-bound
0.512021
Parameterizing Branch-and-Bound Search Trees to Learn Branching Policies · AAAI 2021
Mathematical optimization › discrete optimization › mixed integer linear programming › branching
learning to branch
0.512021
Parameterizing Branch-and-Bound Search Trees to Learn Branching Policies · AAAI 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

imitation learning · 1.6neural architecture · 1.1lookahead expert · 1.1branch-and-bound · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Learning to Cut by Looking Ahead: Cutting Plane Selection via Imitation Learning
abstract
Cutting planes are essential for solving mixed-integer linear problems (MILPs), because they facilitate bound improvements on the optimal solution value. For selecting cuts, modern solvers rely on manually designed heuristics that are tuned to gauge the potential effectiveness of cuts. We show that a greedy selection rule explicitly looking ahead to select cuts that yield the best bound improvement delivers strong decisions for cut selection – but is too expensive to be deployed in practice. In response, we propose a new neural architecture (NeuralCut) for imitation learning on the lookahead expert. Our model outperforms standard baselines for cut selection on several synthetic MILP benchmarks. Experiments on a realistic B&C solver further validate our approach, and exhibit the potential of learning methods in this setting.
Max B. Paulus, Giulia Zarpellon, Andreas Krause 0001, Laurent Charlin, Chris J. Maddison
ICML2
2021 Parameterizing Branch-and-Bound Search Trees to Learn Branching Policies
abstract
Branch and Bound (B&B) is the exact tree search method typically used to solve Mixed-Integer Linear Programming problems (MILPs). Learning branching policies for MILP has become an active research area, with most works proposing to imitate the strong branching rule and specialize it to distinct classes of problems. We aim instead at learning a policy that generalizes across heterogeneous MILPs: our main hypothesis is that parameterizing the state of the B&B search tree can aid this type of generalization. We propose a novel imitation learning framework, and introduce new input features and architectures to represent branching. Experiments on MILP benchmark instances clearly show the advantages of incorporating an explicit parameterization of the state of the search tree to modulate the branching decisions, in terms of both higher accuracy and smaller B&B trees. The resulting policies significantly outperform the current state-of-the-art method for "learning to branch" by effectively allowing generalization to generic unseen instances.
Giulia Zarpellon, Jason Jo, Andrea Lodi 0001, Yoshua Bengio
AAAI1
2019 Learning MILP Resolution Outcomes Before Reaching Time-Limit
Martina Fischetti, Andrea Lodi 0001, Giulia Zarpellon
CPAIOR3
2018 Learning a Classification of Mixed-Integer Quadratic Programming Problems
Pierre Bonami, Andrea Lodi 0001, Giulia Zarpellon
CPAIOR3