Spaces:
Running
Running
| { | |
| "schema_version": 1, | |
| "title": "Repro: Theoretical Challenges in Learning for Branch-and-Cut", | |
| "emoji": "🌳", | |
| "space_id": "snaykey/repro-projected-ssgd", | |
| "paper": { | |
| "openreview_id": "gqKLmdooqZ" | |
| }, | |
| "tags": [ | |
| "icml2026-repro", | |
| "paper-gqKLmdooqZ" | |
| ], | |
| "updated_at": "2026-07-30T10:20:03+00:00", | |
| "root": { | |
| "slug": "index", | |
| "title": "Repro: Theoretical Challenges in Learning for Branch-and-Cut", | |
| "file": "pages/index.md", | |
| "children": [ | |
| { | |
| "slug": "claim-1", | |
| "title": "Selecting cuts by LP bound improvement, a common supervision signal for learned cut selection, can produce branch-and-cut trees that are 2^Omega(n) times larger than trees produced by selecting cuts via a simpler efficacy proxy score (Theorem 3.1, Section 3).", | |
| "file": "pages/claim-1/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "slug": "claim-2", | |
| "title": "Arbitrarily small perturbations (epsilon) to the right-hand sides of cuts can change the minimum achievable branch-and-cut tree size from a single node to 2^Omega(n) nodes (Theorem 3.3, Section 3).", | |
| "file": "pages/claim-2/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "slug": "claim-3", | |
| "title": "A learned branching policy whose per-node scores differ from strong branching by at most an arbitrarily small epsilon for any epsilon>0 can still produce a search tree of at least 2^(n+1)-1 nodes, versus at most 2n+1 nodes for strong branching itself (Theorem 4.1, Section 4).", | |
| "file": "pages/claim-3/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "slug": "claim-4", | |
| "title": "Merely k deviations from the strong branching trajectory can inflate the resulting tree size by a factor of 2^Omega(k) (Theorem 4.4, Section 4).", | |
| "file": "pages/claim-4/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "slug": "claim-5", | |
| "title": "Even branching policies that assign identical scores to candidate variables can produce exponentially different tree sizes depending solely on the tie-breaking rule used (Proposition 2).", | |
| "file": "pages/claim-5/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "slug": "conclusion", | |
| "title": "Conclusion", | |
| "file": "pages/conclusion/page.md", | |
| "children": [] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } |